It appears to me that as humans we crave the extreme. Whether we choose religion, space, or personality type doesn't seem to matter; we want definitive, complete answers. Nevermind that those answers may not necessarily exist. I suppose it's just something else over which to fight.
This may be formatted towards tech peoples, but the applications discussed can be universal. I particularly need to work on number 2; I tend to find an immediate and easy solution instead of researching multiple, and possibly better, solutions.
The idea that economic policy is ultimately for the sake of consumption is so ingrained that we struggle to think our way beyond it. “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production,” Adam Smith declared in The Wealth of Nations.
Seems like the author recognizes one of the main hurdles to overcome in equalizing the value of work across the American culture. I don't know that I would necessarily argue with it, because I will rarely be found truly appreciating an art museum.
Is it just me? Articles like this are great in the sense that they say, "we need free speech." Yet, in the end, there's always a limit. I don't want to hear what a racist or bigot has to say; but I don't think they should be restrained from saying it as long as they don't infringe on any individual's agency.
Many times we think that by "curbing" the extremes we are doing good; but any restriction of free speech is not good. Words can be powerful; the danger is in the action motivated by the words, not necessarily the words themselves.
Maybe I'm just too much of a simpleton; to me it doesn't really matter if I agree with what someone is saying or not. I still think they have the right to think it or say it. I do not agree that any infringement of agency should ever be allowed, one way or the other. Once debated topics dribble into name calling and social crucifixion, I'm out.
I am constantly amazed at how the masses can be so easily controlled. Mass media isn't the only place for it; people will blindly repeat what they've heard with little thought and I have yet to really understand why.
Has anyone else noticed that, seemingly synchronously, men are being debased while woman hood is being erased? Is there a point to that? It's almost as if it's on purpose.
Science can debate facts and philosophers truth, but that doesn't really have anything to do with an individual. And for this individual, I think that both sex and gender matter; that one is not at the expense of the other; and that equality is not synonymous with "same".
I wonder what happened to the apprenticeship system, and if it's possible for it to come back. There is still skilled labor out there that is both necessary and pays relatively well. Why not have an apprenticeship system for jobs like that?
Tech specific. I wonder what Jeff might have to say on this? I know where I work neither React, Angular, nor Vue seem to quite fit our need; and I'm curious what other solutions might come out in the new tech industry that is beginning to turn over to DevOps type methodologies.
I don't think this is new; farmers in the 19th century seemed to understand this at least, anyway. It is interesting to see it explained from a scientific perspective.
I wonder if articles like this will help strengthen modern families, or weaken them? From what I've noticed, when we don't have the biological family to assist in child rearing we turn to the adopted family (neighbors, teachers, et cetera).
Hopefully I'm not committing suicide here, but there are always numbers floating around with statements that just don't make sense to me.
"Since the virus made landfall in the US, it has killed at least 20,000 black Americans." Before this statement was a claim that it has been disproportionate to the Black Community. (I'm taking for granted that the author is not lying about the number of deaths.)
Now, depending on how one reads the demographics (it gets complicated, because there are the one race and multi race statistics against how people are categorized by race as they die), black Americans can account for anywhere from 15% to 24% of the population; and if 100,000 deaths have occurred, and about 20% of them are black Americans, how is that disproportionate? Now if it really is closer to 15%, then maybe it is; but it seems like the ratio of black Americans is actually closer to the 20% mark (black or African American being about 20% of the population).
It's not good that deaths are happening at all; and even though I don't see it I have to know that racism is real. There are far too many people who have had bad experiences; and I've heard some of them. I do not like inequality, and any amount of injustice should be rectified as soon as possible.
I just don't see the numbers relative to Corona virus deaths as a supporting theory to the prevalence of racism in America.
Perhaps a more convincing argument would have been to compare the number of poor people deaths versus middle class versus the wealthier and wealthy; then compare that with the percentage of minorities who live in poorer neighborhoods versus the majority (white people, I guess?). Is the claim that the virus disproportionately affects poorer, more congested peoples true? I would think that that is true, and it makes sense, but a statement without proof is just that: a statement.
I think this is well written and definitely provides a fantastic argument for C (for some reason, some colleges and universities are steering away from it).
It gets a bit technical, so if you're not a tech guy might want to read the first and last 20% or so. READ THIS IF you are NOT a tech guy but you MANAGE something in IT.
I've often wondered who still exists that knows machine language, and how those languages are used; because someone has to be doing it.