prev <-> next
[2017-08-11 12:53:42] - mig: in all honesty though, 70% isn't horrible for a software company. a hiring manager, or a ceo could easily argue that *much* less than 30% of your "actual" population (CS grads) are female. ~a
[2017-08-11 12:47:30] - mig: once you get above a certain size, the odds of a bias like 70% male from the demographics of the population being completely random gets very close to 0%. ~a
[2017-08-11 12:47:07] - mig: well, i'll throw out an answer and we'll see if it sticks: what are the odds that this could be completely random? given the demographics of the population, what are the odds that you could have "randomly" hired your workforce? ~a
[2017-08-11 11:59:52] - One thing that jumped out at me: "An annual diversity report the company made public in June showed that about 69% of its total workforce is male, and 56% of all employees are white." The implication is those #s are bad. Ok, fine, so what is the "correct" demographic breakdown? How do people arrive at these correct #s? - mig
[2017-08-11 11:00:11] - aaron: Yeah, that's what it sounds like the definition of the word is as I understand it, at least. -Paul
[2017-08-11 10:57:21] - paul: following from that, if both applicants are equal it might be logical to then hire the male applicant. but that is sexist... because it is subjectively "bad". i don't think it's sexist because it's incorrect or not founded in science. there can be science and logic and it is still sexist because it is just "bad" - aaron
[2017-08-11 10:55:23] - paul: in other words if i look at two resumes, one from a male and one from a female, it might be a factual statement that the female applicant will quit her job 1.6 years sooner, on average. (pulling that number out of my ass.) that fact is not sexist. - aaron
[2017-08-11 10:52:33] - paul: i think sexism is always "bad" but sexism is not always "incorrect" (avoiding the ambiguous use of wrong, which can also refer to morally wrong) - aaron
[2017-08-11 10:48:31] - http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/06/technology/culture/google-diversity/index.html This isn't what I was reading yesterday, but it does refer to "anti-diversity manifesto" and "sexist manifesto". -Paul
[2017-08-11 10:46:41] - a: http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/08/cnn-retracts-anti-diversity-memo-headline/ So maybe that's what happened? Sounds like maybe CNN got a little ahead of itself and is now backtracking? -Paul
[2017-08-11 10:46:24] - a: Interesting. I am almost positive I had a CNN article open yesterday that not only called it "anti-diversity" but also called it "sexist" (outright, not "some call it sexist"). Now I can't find that same article. I HAVE found articles talking about how CNN has changed some headlines, though... -Paul
[2017-08-11 10:16:31] - paul: for example googling (heh) "google sexist" there are a lot of results that seem to argue both sides of this argument. and even the ones that go against you seem to at least do better than "using shorthand". ~a
[2017-08-11 10:15:20] - paul: well regarding shorthand, i doubt the media has called the memo sexist. for example, i'd expect (and do) see stuff like "some believe this is sexist" or more specifically "The clear majority of online responders labeled Damore’s memo as sexist" ~a
[2017-08-11 10:00:24] - Daniel: I don't really care which definition we use (or is correct), but it does change whether or not I think it's fair to call the memo sexist. It seems to me that using that term in the media lessens the objectivity some. -Paul
[2017-08-11 09:58:31] - Paul:. Yeah I started wondering that to yesterday. Daniel
[2017-08-11 09:55:11] - Daniel: I guess I'm just wondering if "sexism" has to be something false. In other words, is sexism always bad or wrong? The dictionary definition seems to imply it is to me. -Paul
[2017-08-11 09:53:51] - a: Sorry, using shorthand.
-Paul[2017-08-10 20:24:41] - a: yes to phone internet but going to beach with kids/family so will probably be busy or tired a lot. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 18:05:02] - https://www.wired.com/2017/02/russians-engineer-brilliant-slot-machine-cheat-casinos-no-fix/ using rng manipulation on slot machines - aaron
[2017-08-10 17:42:57] - daniel, does your phone not have the internet on it?
~a[2017-08-10 17:32:32] - Also i'm going out of town for a few days so if I stop responding its not because I lost interest! -Daniel
[2017-08-10 17:09:08] - If you made a statement men are better lawyers than women I think yeah that probably seems sexist. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 17:08:00] - Paul: If we were picking basketball teams from a random assortment of people (both genders) and we picked all men first that I think is by definition sexist. Would you agree with that? I think your statement is grey - depends on if mean average or all or what. Also athletic realm might be the wrong one to talk about. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 17:05:05] - even the rant got that part right. at least sort of. ~a
[2017-08-10 17:04:27] - paul: you forgot "on average". ~a
[2017-08-10 16:51:10] - Daniel: Hmmmm, I don't think I understand. To use your analogy, is it sexist to say that men are better basketball players than women? -Paul
[2017-08-10 16:45:32] - Paul: I think statements of fact can be value / attitude neutral. Average male in NBA jumps higher than average female in WNBA isn't sexist. I think when you start applying stereotypes with a causal link to some underlying characteristic of a person thats when you are sexist / racist / ____ist. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 16:45:08] - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/ Another thing that has been bothering me in the coverage of the memo, the labeling of it as "anti-diversity". The more I read coverage of this issue, the more I seriously wonder how many journalists and opinion writers actually read the memo at all. -Paul
[2017-08-10 16:39:13] - Daniel: No specifics. I heard he posted it to a small(er?) discussion board and then is started getting circulated. Eventually it got leaked. I think he got fired a few days after the leak? Maybe more? -Paul
[2017-08-10 16:34:27] - Does anyone know the timeline well enough to know how fast was he fired? I was wondering if it was possible to tell if he was fired due to public outrage or if he was fired before there was public outrage? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 16:33:31] - Daniel: So sexist has to be something wrong and not just differentiation between the genders? -Paul
[2017-08-10 16:33:09] - Paul: I think stating that gender stereotypes are science and are due to biologic differences and therefore can't be changed is probably sexist. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 16:31:38] - Paul: I think they did prove that brains were sufficiently different that you could tell gender most of the time based on the brain so I don't think that is a sexist idea. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 16:24:21] - Daniel: Hmmm, so if I understand you correctly, is there a time when sexism is "right"? Like, let's say that we find out that yes, male and female brains ARE definitely different as proven by science. Would saying that be sexist? -Paul
[2017-08-10 16:13:35] - sorry that sentence didn't really make sense since i typed it over like five minutes - got distracted at work. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 16:13:09] - Paul: I'm not sure I would call it a sexist manifesto, but I think that saying that science says women are more neurotic because of science might be a sexist idea coming out. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 16:00:23] - aDaniel: Do you guys think it's accurate to call the memo a "sexist manifesto"? I keep seeing that term in articles online and it seems pretty loaded at best and outright misleading at worst. -Paul
[2017-08-10 15:43:54] - a: I think I can find something we can agree on. How about this? Google was within their right to fire him, and I can see why they would want to considering the outrage that resulted. Having said that, I wish they hadn't and I really wish that instead of generating outrage, people had decided to engage the ideas from the memo. -Paul
[2017-08-10 15:16:27] - paul: if we were arguing whether 60/40 is a laudable goal or not, we might be able to come to agreement there. if we're arguing whether or not he should have been fired for this document being sent to the company, i think we're going to have a harder time agreeing. ~a
[2017-08-10 15:12:30] - paul: "treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group" yeah and if that was the entire content of the memo, i doubt he'd have been fired. ~a
[2017-08-10 15:02:26] - a: I'm not advocating we change it currently. It forces us to try and fit our thoughts into a concise format - which isn't all bad. But I find myself running out of room a fair amount
-Daniel[2017-08-10 15:00:57] - Now, maybe that's ironic or hypocritical when taken along with everything else from the memo. I don't know. Like Daniel said before (and I agree with), I found it to be kinda scattered and hard to follow his thinking in places. -Paul
[2017-08-10 14:58:36] - This was a point from the memo (I'm pretty sure) that struck home to me that we haven't really discussed: "I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)." -Paul
[2017-08-10 14:55:23] - a: Frankly, it seems like the "other" side is the one that is wishing for something: complete equality of gender representation (in all jobs? I don't know, but at least in engineering jobs at Google, I guess) even though it's a goal that has eluded almost every major tech company despite massive efforts. -Paul
[2017-08-10 14:52:44] - a: I don't feel like I really have a dog in this particular hunt in terms of biological differences. It looks like the science says there are biological differences, so that's what I tend to believe is true, but if I learn tomorrow otherwise it doesn't really change anything. -Paul
[2017-08-10 14:51:43] - a: Why would I wish that males and females are biologically different? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Either way, I don't see it as a huge deal. What I am saying, though, is that I think I could tolerate working with somebody who thought males and females are (and should be) completely the same. -Paul
[2017-08-10 14:51:37] - daniel: we could increase the character limit. part of that is a limitation of the single-line input-box of the board. we could have a multi-line input-box of course, closer to reddit, but that kinda gets away from what the board was trying to be. try this and see if it's closer to what you want? ~a
[2017-08-10 14:29:38] - On a meta note I wonder sometimes if the character limit is good or bad for discussions like this. It forces one to be quite concise but sometimes seems limiting. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 14:28:35] - Those four articles instead seemed to confirm that there are differences in the brain and that you could predict gender based on brain but thats not the same to me. Don't brains change over time as we make new nueral pathways and stuff based on our experiences? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 14:27:28] - Maybe there is science that proves the causation link but the stuff I skimmed earlier didn't seem to say that to me (those four science studies linked in the article you posted paul). Maybe I need to read more gender studies science? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 14:26:34] - Paul: Maybe this is it for me. In his paper paragraph A says there exist biologic differences in men vs women. Then he lays out things in paragraph B about women on average. I think he thinks (ha) this is showing a causal relationship but I'm not sure I would agree. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 13:37:44] - paul: part of me wonders how many of his statements are true AND how many of them he (and maybe also you) kinda wishes were true. ~a
[2017-08-10 13:36:46] - paul: "I'll bite.
What few parts would you change?" well that's hard to specify in this forum. maybe if it was on google docs i could easily produce a track-changes list of things to change. many of the changes boil down to: you've said something true in a counterproductive way OR you've said something true and you haven't cited the source for your data. ~a[2017-08-10 12:33:28] - mig: I'm sure people would bring it up but by seeming to lay all the blame on bio differences that are universal and should just be accepted he's throwing gas on the fire. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 12:32:06] - daniel: in this culture of microagressions and the golden calf of ethnogender diversity, I'm not sure it's possible to broach these issues and not have anyone howl about racism/sexism. - mig
[2017-08-10 12:30:30] - Daniel: You don't think that would be awkward and possibly impossible? It seems like it was about policies around improving female representation among engineers. Hard to see how he could indirectly refer to those policies without mentioning women. -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:29:30] - But that people have to have the socially approved opinion on the issue. -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:29:30] - Paul: I think his point was about google's policies and culture not about women. He could have just presented his Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap section and nothing else it would have gone better -Daniel
[2017-08-10 12:28:57] - In fact, I think I hear some coworkers talking about this very topic now in the cafe of my work, openly and freely. It's okay, though, because they have seem to have the "correct" opinion that this guy was an idiot and is wrong. That's another frustrating part. It's not that we can't talk about this issue... -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:26:20] - See? This is why I didn't want to read more about this story. Now I'm mad and wishing I had written all of this on Rampant Discourse (which would probably ultimately led to me being fired from my company) and have wasted half the day.
-Paul[2017-08-10 12:24:35] - And I'm sorry, but I think that's just dumb. Completely and utterly dumb, that our society is at a point where the majority seems to think it's okay to shut down what appears to be an earnest attempt at discussing a societal problem because some people don't want to hear what you have to say. -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:23:43] - Daniel: I mean, I haven't really seen any evidence that he said anything factually wrong (other than some people on social media off-handedly just mentioning that the entire thing was completely wrong without anything to back that up). The entire back-lash seems to boil down to "You just can't say that". -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:22:19] - Daniel: You're probably right, but wasn't his main point kind of about women? Why, in a company which has made a big deal about trying to address gender imbalances in its workforce, is it a fire-able offense to lay out a way to help women at the company that uses scientific evidence but might run counter to what some people think? -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:20:18] - Paul: I think if had never mentioned women or said the word women his memo would have gone way better. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 12:19:07] - Oh, and by the way, you should be fired too. -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:18:00] - And it's kind of frustrating. It feels like people can't just disagree with your points anymore and we can't have rational discussions. No, if you disagree with somebody than you're racist or sexist or anti-diversity or alt-right or whatever. -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:15:20] - To me, this sounds like a case of a bunch of people (who either didn't read the memo or just decided to straw-man the hell out of it) who decided to stir up the outrage machine and start talking about things that the memo wasn't about, and people who couldn't be bothered to read past headlines just accepted it as fact. -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:10:18] - Daniel: However, barring any other compelling reasons to fire him, I think this is where maybe the HR person takes him aside and tells him that's not the appropriate way to do things. I don't think the proper response is to fire him. There could easily be more info we don't know about, but I think this reflects very poorly on Google. -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:09:10] - Daniel: That's entirely possible. I don't know the situation around the programs he references, how he "published" his memo (did it go company wide? was it just a smaller group? etc) or anything like that. -Paul
[2017-08-10 12:04:24] - Paul: I think he was trying to suggest an alternative path. That is true. I think he did it very poorly. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 12:00:44] - a: "i think i could have made his memo from something fire-able to something useful by changing a few parts" Again, I think this is a wild change from "the rant was bullshit", but okay, I'll bite.
What few parts would you change? -Paul[2017-08-10 11:57:36] - Daniel: Yes, those quotes were from the article. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:57:12] - Daniel: This guy seems like he was suggesting an alternative path, that instead of setting up programs that essentially discriminate based on gender, to try to set up jobs so that they appeal to how the female brain (generally) works. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:55:51] - Paul: I'm not sure what you are quoting? The article you just linked? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:55:34] - Daniel: "we shouldn't make any effort to make things more equitable." That's not how I read his memo at all. From what I know (again, could be ignorance here!), Google has been trying ways to get rid of this gender imbalance by addressing "cultural issues" and frankly has been failing miserably. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:53:42] - Daniel: "Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour." and "In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy." -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:53:16] - Paul: Do you concede that there are cultural and society factors that help shape gender differences? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:52:58] - Daniel: Do I think men, in general (and I want to stress, "in general") probably make better software engineers than women? That's what the science that I am reading seems to indicate, so yes. I'll refer you to this article I linked to before: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/
[2017-08-10 11:52:41] - The way I seem to be interpreting yours and his position is that due to the bio differences we shouldn't make any effort to make things more equitable. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:51:11] - Paul: Ok so for the portion that isn't bio-driven shouldn't we work to eliminate that so that as much as possible we are being fair? Or should those bio differences lead to culture differences which just reinforce those bio differences in a cycle where we end up with 90%+ male software engineers? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:49:55] - Daniel: of software engineers. I think aiming for some arbitrary "equality" of genders in the field is pointless. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:49:23] - Daniel: "do you Paul think that men are inherently better at being a software engineer than a woman". I think that the over-representation of men in software engineering is not entirely due to cultural forces and sexism and that it is non-trivially due to biological differences as well. I think in a true meritocracy, men are likely to always be more than 50%... -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:47:29] - Paul: I dont want to assume your position but your questions to ~a seem to imply that then being a woman is relevant to your position as a software engineer. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:47:21] - a: On the contrary, I think shaming him and firing him was the counter productive part. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:47:07] - a: "you have to admit these things are counterproductive, right?" I don't see why I have to admit this at all. Female representation in Silicon Valley (particularly at the high levels) is a big issue right now. Despite all this programs companies have, the results have been pretty shitty. This guy suggested a different way that has some science behind it... -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:46:35] - Paul: I guess maybe to change the focus and perhaps get to the underlying contention perhaps - do you Paul think that men are inherently better at being a software engineer than a woman? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:45:25] - a: "i don't tell my lady coworkers that they're scientifically more likely to take time off for maternity leave." Again, that's fine, but if you were having a discussion about why women generally took more time off at a company, don't you think it might be relevant to point that out? Or is that not allowed? -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:45:20] - Paul: "The evidence is pretty clear" - depends on the job in question I guess? For software development I'm not sure I'm convinced yet that the statement "Men are better software engineers than women" is scientifically accurate. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:44:07] - a: "i don't tell my fat coworkers that they're scientifically fat and unfit." That's fine when it comes to engineers, but if you are running a gym and looking for personal trainers, don't you think that might be relevant? -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:42:24] - a: Asian coworkers are more likely to finish your sentence?
-Paul[2017-08-10 11:42:09] - paul: iow, i think i could have made his memo from something fire-able to something useful by changing a few parts. ~a
[2017-08-10 11:41:42] - Daniel: I understand it's a potentially controversial statement to say that women are generally not as good at certain jobs as men (the flip side that nobody ever talks about being that men aren't as good at certain jobs as women), but I also think the evidence is pretty clear that this is true, and the science shows it could be biological. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:40:31] - you have to admit these things are counterproductive, right? scientifically true and counterproductive? like, sometimes saying nothing is much better than saying something. ~a
[2017-08-10 11:40:12] - Daniel: "inferior for software" is different from "inferior". I understand it might sound like I'm being nit-picky, but I think this is how slippery slopes happen and how a point about men and women GENERALLY having different aptitudes turns into "He thinks women are inferior!" or even "He thinks non-whites are inferior!" -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:39:25] - Paul: Again I would concede some level of bio difference but I think to blame all the issues on that seems and ignore all the culture parts that contribute is irresponsible. Shouldn't we work to change the culture part? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:38:54] - paul: i don't do these things because they're both bad and because they're "things you can't say". ~a
[2017-08-10 11:38:13] - paul: both. they were bad and also "things you can't say". i don't tell my fat coworkers that they're scientifically fat and unfit. i don't tell my lady coworkers that they're scientifically more likely to take time off for maternity leave. i don't tell my asian coworkers that they're more likely to . . . i dunno, finish my sentence. ~a
[2017-08-10 11:37:36] - Paul: I'm not sure he ever used the word inferior but its definitely how I read it. Do you read him stating that they avoid stress, are more neurotic, the part on page 4 where he says they like social and artistic jobs as not trying to imply they are inferior for software? -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:35:35] - a: "the bad points were very bad" Can you tell me what the bad points were? Were they actually bad or just "things you can't say" like the (apparently scientifically pretty accurate) fact that male and female brains are different? -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:28:49] - paul: a little contradictory yes: but let me clarify: it had good points and it had bad points. the bad points were very bad. and overall i'd rate it: complete bullshit. fire-able if you email it to everybody in the company. ~a
[2017-08-10 11:28:42] - Daniel: "women being inherently inferior" Did he ever make that point in the memo? I didn't read it all, but it sounded like he was very careful not to ever claim that women were inferior, just different, and that Google was trying to use "male" methods to try to entice female engineers instead of "female" methods (which seems like a type of sexism to me). -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:26:43] - Paul: Good nuggets doesn't mean you can't be against the thing as a whole. I agree with his ideas on echo chamber and sensitivity but I think conflating them with affirmative action and women being inherently inferior makes it a poor memo. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:25:52] - a: I understand Neuroticism is a loaded word, but isn't it also a scientific term? -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:24:45] - a: Okay, so I'm a little confused. You said "the rant was bullshit" and "I hate the memo, a lot" just yesterday and now you're saying, "he had such good points!". Doesn't that seem a little contradictory? -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:22:04] - paul: leave out the neurotic part? he had such good points! why wouldn't you get someone to proofread your work and say something along the lines of "hey, lets leave out the part about how women are unsuited for high stress jobs". ~a
[2017-08-10 11:19:31] - a: I'm not trying to straw-man here, so please tell me where I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that opinions can be voiced if most people agree, but otherwise they can't. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:18:38] - a: Okay, so what was he supposed to do with his opinion? Also, what exactly is the difference between what you are saying and an echo chamber? -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:17:25] - Daniel: So if we completely objectively try to choose the top 1% of engineers in the country, it wouldn't at all surprise me if men ended up being the vast majority even if sexism and cultural factors were somehow magically removed. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:16:37] - Daniel: "Google should be able to at minimum be at something around a 60/40 split on gender." But I also read that Google rejects something like 98%+ of applicants, which means they generally get the absolute cream of the crop. I've also read that the extremes in terms of IQ (both high AND low) tend to be over-represented by men. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:16:12] - paul: "it all out in a fairly careful and thoughtful way" here's where i strongly disagree. part of being thoughtful is knowing your damn audience. send this to impressionable line-workers (women *and* men) and you've completely thrown "thoughtfulness" out the window. ~a
[2017-08-10 11:14:52] - a: Okay, but his points weren't about porn, they were about Google policies to try to increase female representation among engineers (I think?). Do you think it's the same level of inappropriateness to suggest alternative ways to encourage female representation among engineers that appear to largely be based in science? -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:14:09] - Paul: I only partly agree. I took away that because there are bio differences we should not work for diversity the way we are. However in his paper the graphs he uses show significant overlap. Which seems to imply there are enough competent women out there that Google should be able to at minimum be at something around a 60/40 split on gender. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:13:18] - a: It sounds to me like this guy raised some pretty legitimate points about echo chambers and Google policies and biological differences between men and women, and wrote it all out in a fairly careful and thoughtful way (regardless of the wisdom of writing the memo at all) and that he was fired pretty much solely for voicing his contrary opinion. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:12:03] - paul: yep. there's tons and tons of true things i refuse to say at work. i don't tell my coworkers about what kind of porn i like. that would be true and totally fire-able (though i'm not sure who would fire me: on the other hand, i'm sure my business partner and i would have an uncomfortable conversation about it). ~a
[2017-08-10 11:11:53] - a: With all the caveats that I still don't know everything that happened, so my opinion could be based in some ignorance, here is what I would say: (1) It's a damned shame that this memo turned into a disaster, and I don't think it should've, but it's sadly not too surprising. (2) From what I've heard, it doesn't at all sound to me like a good thing he was fired.-Paul
[2017-08-10 11:10:16] - a: Let me ask you something about that point. Does the truthfulness of what he said matter at all to you? Like, let's say he was 100% right about that statement. Is it still a fire-able offense to you? -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:10:11] - paul: ok, if you agree it might've ended up as a disaster based on the topics covered, then i guess i agree too. it did end up a disaster. and he was fired. and i think that was a good thing. do we agree on that too? ~a
[2017-08-10 11:08:43] - Daniel: From the parts I read, it sounded to me like he took pains to repeat that he wasn't saying sexism didn't exist or that social pressures weren't involved, only that biological differences could play a larger role. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:07:30] - paul: males will now read between the lines and think this means something, and women feel they are unwanted in high stress jobs. ~a
[2017-08-10 11:07:23] - paul: "women, on average, have more: neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). this may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." true or not, this definitely is the last thing an employee should be sending to their male and female coworkers. ~a
[2017-08-10 11:07:21] - paul: "good that he was fired. Maybe you can tell me why you think so?" it was the content of the memo that made me have that opinion. "Like just write a memo about trying to confront the echo chamber w/o bringing up anything else." i couldn't agree more. why did you have to talk about how women are neurotic and have issues with high stress jobs? ~a
[2017-08-10 11:06:54] - Daniel: I think we're in agreement. He could've been 100% right on all accounts (note that I am NOT saying he was) and it still might've ended up as a disaster based on topics covered. -Paul
[2017-08-10 11:06:44] - Paul: His part about women seemed the worst part as well to me which I imagine is how others feel as well and what many are latching onto. "These differences aren’t just socially constructed because" - this sentence itself implies that the differences are in part socially constructed. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:02:50] - -Daniel
[2017-08-10 11:02:46] - Paul:I think its like four hot button topics rolled into one and bringing up men vs women is just asking for trouble in that format. Like people get REALLY worked up (clearly! ha) over this topic. Its not something I would put in a blast email like this. Almost guaranteed to fail. Its like trying to convince people over a blast email in the existence or not of God.
[2017-08-10 10:59:19] - I would probably agree with some of his points about sensitivity training. I think working against an echo chamber environment is good to a point? That one is probably tricky because its currently hard for me where to define that point. Affirmative action is clearly an unsettled issue as it keeps getting to the SC and is a complicated topic. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 10:57:58] - Daniel: "I find it hard to organize a small coherent response to the memo since it seemed to be a little scattered to me." That's something I noticed while I was reading it, and it's why I got bored and stopped. Hard to follow his train of thought. -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:57:20] - Daniel: "does it in a way pretty much guaranteed to be a disaster" Two questions: (1) What ways made it guaranteed to be a disaster? (2) Do you think it's a justifiable disaster? In other words, I don't think people should necessarily be fired just for discussing politics at work, but at the same time I know it's kinda asking for trouble. -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:56:54] - I find it hard to organize a small coherent response to the memo since it seemed to be a little scattered to me. It contains a discussion of echo chamber, biologic differences of women v men, affirmative action, sensitivity training, and people's biases. All of those can be their own individual discussions. Its hard for me to talk about them all at once. -Daniel
[2017-08-10 10:53:10] - -Daniel
[2017-08-10 10:53:08] - Paul / a: So I just went and read through the Google memo. I think he makes reasonable points but also does it in a way pretty much guaranteed to be a disaster. I'm not sure what his goal was but I think he could have done a better job by not throwing in as many issues. Like just write a memo about trying to confront the echo chamber w/o bringing up anything else.
[2017-08-10 10:46:17] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGz76D6UAAADwGf.jpg Completely off-topic (sorry), but I saw this on Twitter and thought it was really interesting. Obviously I'm biased by current events, but it's hard to completely condemn this seemingly ridiculous idea as a bad one. -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:42:10] - a: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-08/google-can-t-seem-to-tolerate-diversity Bloomberg actually appears to have a number of interesting articles (I just kept scrolling down) written by women who are a little more sympathetic to some of the points of the memo's author. -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:31:22] - a: You've been pretty opinionated on it being good that he was fired. Maybe you can tell me why you think so? -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:30:43] - a: Again, I don't really know the situation surrounding this guy. Maybe he was a constant trouble maker and this was the last straw. Maybe he was harassing coworkers. Maybe he inappropriately blasted this company wide. Maybe there is a good reason he was fired. If this memo was the only reason, though, I don't see a lot of good reason there. -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:29:26] - "Of the four scientists who commented at Quillette [...] three, including neuroscientist and science writer Deborah Soh, thought the memo was almost entirely correct." -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:29:22] - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ and https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/08/googler-fired-diversity-memo-had-point-researchers-agree/548518001/ -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:08:28] - a: Hard for me to say if I agree with his points or not without doing more research into exactly what points he was trying to make and what Google policies he was railing against, but from what I'm reading now, it sounds like a lot of the science behind his points are legit. -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:06:26] - a: You said, " the rant was bullshit". It didn't sound like a rant at all. In fact, it sounded like a pretty well thought out, reasoned and measured explanation of his opinion. It also sounded like he took great pains to try to preemptively head off the criticisms that are being made against him now. -Paul
[2017-08-10 10:04:46] - a: Okay, so I started reading the memo yesterday. I got bored really quickly. Too many citations of things I didn't want to follow and allusions to things specific to Google that I didn't know about. I estimate I skimmed about 10% of the memo in total. Frankly, the stuff I did read is extremely different than what I am reading in editorials and social media. -Paul
[2017-08-09 14:35:10] - a: "any reason you think it's that high?" Any reason you think it's not? My (lazy) guess is that people are going to roughly fall in a right/left divide on this issue and so around 30% of people are going to knee-jerk judge Google based on headline reading and right leaning editorials alone. -Paul
[2017-08-09 14:07:01] - but honestly, it even takes adults a while to figure that one out. ~a
[2017-08-09 14:06:31] - any situation where her team affiliation changed at night would, of course, throw her for a loop. ~a
[2017-08-09 14:05:44] - . . . anyways, she ended up voting for someone on her own team because she didn't understand how the minion worked exactly. ~a
[2017-08-09 14:04:48] - "because MY eyes were open! we're both werewolves!" haha, yeah the 8 year old probably would have seen past the logic of that one. the one situation we had where she sadly let us down was when (omg, probably a mistake) we had both the minion *and* the doppelganger in. and so the werewolf team had a majority but we couldn't explain that to her well enough. ~a
[2017-08-09 13:33:19] - in some ways it was fun in its own right. learning how to win when the child wouldn't always act in her own self-interest was the true game. ~a
[2017-08-09 13:32:23] - "understood lying. but, she didn't understand how to play strategically" yeah i had the same experience. she was almost like her own role! youngChild+werewolf vs youngChild+troublemaker. it's like doppelganger+werewolf vs doppelganger+troublemaker
~a[2017-08-09 12:55:31] - i've played enough games to not get shaken by stuff like this, ao I continue the line of questioning... "well.... how did you know my eyes were open?" "because MY eyes were open! we're both werewolves!" she was very proud to catch her uncle lying. ha ha. but, the werewolves did not do very well that round - aaron
[2017-08-09 12:54:10] - a: after we all woke up i was pretty sure there wasn't a seer, because nobody spoke up. so i said, "i was the seer! and i looked at zaiah's card." and she says, "no, you're a werewolf!!" i ask her, "why do you think i'm a werewolf?" "because your eyes were open!" - aaron
[2017-08-09 12:53:05] - a: the younger player understood the rules, like what she could and couldn't do -- and understood lying. but, she didn't understand how to play strategically. my favorite game with her was very memorable, we were both werewolves, and we woke up at night and closed our eyes again... - aaron
[2017-08-09 12:52:17] - a: ha ha, i taught my niece and nephew when they were ages 7 and 9. we never played with the doppelganger or the minion, just stuff like troublemaker/robber/insomniac/tanner/etc, and daybreak roles of similar difficulty (witch/mystic wolf/etc) - aaron
[2017-08-09 11:57:18] - i played one night ultimate werewolf with an 8 year old (box recommends 8 and up, but boardgamegeek community recommends 10 and up). she hated the doppelganger. ama. ~a
[2017-08-09 11:52:54] - any reason you think it's that high? i must have been reading different coverage than you. ~a
[2017-08-09 11:48:04] - a: I think some 30-40 of those 100 (or maybe even more) would say Google over-reacted or is squashing free speech or something along those lines. -Paul
[2017-08-09 11:47:15] - i'm fine ignoring the rant. the media coverage i've seen was fine. did you want to point to some unfair media coverage? ~a
[2017-08-09 11:47:01] - a: Right, but I still don't think you understand what I am saying (or you are just making a different point). I understand that's what YOU think about this particular issue. But if we polled 100 random Americans about this issue, how many do you think would agree with you about how open and shut it is? How many would blame Google for something? -Paul
[2017-08-09 11:44:07] - paul: yeah, i guess i just don't see it that way. i see it as: the rant was bullshit, the media correctly said that the rant was bullshit, and google should have fired that guy. there goes google and their nonacceptance of sexism in the workplace. ~a
[2017-08-09 11:20:58] - a: My point wasn't about Google, or female engineers or freedom of speech or anything like that. My point was about the public and the media and how people consume that media and how (unfairly) I think a lot of people are going to read the headline and think "there goes Google and their liberal close-minded echo-chamber". -Paul
[2017-08-09 11:19:19] - a: "so maybe his accusations were totally off-base and beyond the pale and the firing is absolutely deserved". I 100% agree that companies should be able to fire people for doing what this guy did, even if it didn't include racial slurs and whatnot. -Paul
[2017-08-09 11:18:18] - a: I don't know how to make it any clearer: I am not saying the firing wasn't justified or that this guy was right. I won't argue this point with you because it's not the point I'm trying to make. In my Facebook post, I wrote (by my count) 6 sentences, and one was all about how it's very possible that the firing was justified... -Paul
[2017-08-09 11:14:50] - a: "read the damn rant, paul, it's not too long". I might later. The main reason I don't want to now is because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. If I read it, then I'm going to have to read more, and then I'm going to have an opinion to share, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is an opinion that people disagree with me about. -Paul
[2017-08-09 11:14:19] - if i speak out against an echo-chamber environment, but include a few racial slurs, and talk about how much neo-nazis and white-supremacists hate echo-chambers: obviously that didn't happen here. but, would you still be arguing against the optics of firing someone for speaking out against an echo-chamber environment? is the rant really as irrelevant as you say? ~a
[2017-08-09 11:13:38] - "it doesn't help that you admitted to knowing nothing about the actual event" But that's kind of the point. I don't know much about it, and most people won't. Fair or not (and I'm saying this is definitely unfair), lots of people are going to judge based on the same lack of information. -Paul
[2017-08-09 11:08:59] - i didn't post it because i'm often worried about my friends on facebook, and how they'd view my unadulterated opinion on a topic. i often see the things that people post to facebook, and judge the fuck out of people and what they put there. ~a
[2017-08-09 11:05:45] - yeah it's probably hard to say "hey the optics of some event are bad" without implying "hey some event is bad". especially when the event is controversially good. it doesn't help that you admitted to knowing nothing about the actual event.
regardless, read the damn rant, paul, it's not too long. ~a[2017-08-09 09:57:41] - a: Regardless of how justified the firing might be, I think a very large group of people are going to have the takeaway that Google fired somebody for speaking out against an echo-chamber environment. -Paul
[2017-08-09 09:57:00] - a: Sorry about your not posted google-firing comment. Why didn't you post it? I worry I gave the wrong impression with my post even though I tried to be careful when writing it. I wasn't at all intending to defend the guy or even necessarily criticize Google. It was more a comment on how the optics are bad. -Paul
[2017-08-09 09:55:49] - a: Really? I keep forgetting how small Europe is relative to the US. I just know they have to literally go to a different country to reach the ocean, so that seems like it should be further than us who have one in our same state. -Paul
[2017-08-09 09:31:35] - paul, i drafted like two paragraphs of response to your google-firing thing. ended up not posting anything.
sigh. ~a[2017-08-08 16:56:52] - regarding the beaches though, you're crazy: they're like 2 hours from the closest beach. we can't even get that. unless you count the chesapeake. which i don't. ~a
[2017-08-08 16:49:07] - paul guns are like a double-edged sword. in that they hurt when you grab them too tight. ha jk. ~a
[2017-08-08 16:47:30] - i guess cost of living is a little problematic. ~a
[2017-08-08 16:46:43] - a: Lack of beaches? Not sure if it's a downside for you or not, but abundance of guns? -Paul
[2017-08-08 16:45:14] - i don't think i'd mind living in switzerland. very free country, low taxes. what's there not to like? ~a
[2017-08-08 16:32:56] - yep. ~a
[2017-08-08 16:27:38] - a: I'm trying to wrap my head around it, but I think that makes sense, right? In countries with more cyclists, people are more used to their presence and less likely to accidentally run them over? -Paul
[2017-08-08 16:18:54] - paul: whoa. imo that's an interesting correlation. ~a
[2017-08-08 14:27:42] - yeah i did too, but we were less invested in the market (and the economy). ~a
[2017-08-08 14:24:15] - a: I was invested in the market in 2001. Granted, not nearly as much as I am now, but I had several thousand in a mutual fund. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-08 14:11:26] - xpovos: part of it was that we were not in the market yet, but i agree with your conclusion regardless: the effect on the real economy was larger (unemployment hit much higher numbers) ~a
[2017-08-08 14:00:27] - Ah, Shiller. I love that graph. What made 2008 so brutal wasn't the market, though. Sure, the market went down, but it went down because EVERYTHING else was going down too. The 2001 stock bubble didn't feel anywhere near as bad because that crash had very little to do with the real economy--unless you worked at Pets.com or something. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-08 13:52:24] - xpovos: we've had a number of market "oopses" since 1980 though. black monday, savings and loan crisis, dot-com bubble, subprime mortgage crisis, but i agree, the 1973/1974 stock market crash would be nice to see too, also yeah the great depression would be nice: try this graph. 2008 looks so small. ~a
[2017-08-08 13:51:49] - I guess that's probably better than "alcoholic" products. Those would probably get you killed in Russia. (Assumption, it's Cyrillic, but it could be Ukraine or several other countries.) -- Xpovos
[2017-08-08 13:51:02] - a: Alcoholic "products". -- Xpovos
[2017-08-08 13:50:25] - The beat the market tool is also very fun. My results. 1) Beat the market handily. 2) Lost to the market (by $40). 3) Lost to the market badly (selected 10-year run didn't have any significant dip). Even averaging the three, I don't think it worked too well to try to time, even with my "above average" results. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-08 13:44:38] - xpovos: based on the graphic next to the sign, here's my guess: "alcoholic products" ~a
[2017-08-08 13:43:50] - a: I'd also like to see the "Market Overvaluation" graph going back farther than 1980. Something going back to 1927 would be nice to see. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-08 13:41:15] - a: The sign reads "Product" with the bonus quotation marks. I wonder what's up with that. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-08 13:40:06] - aaron: Cool. I wonder how it selects the next image search to pull results. E.g. mine were Cyprus after beating the first level then Legume after beating the second level. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-08 09:50:14] - the perfect storm ~a
[2017-08-08 09:50:12] - i won once and lost (badly) once, so i hear you. luckily IRL you're able to buy and sell in increments, and multiple times, but the overall message still applies, i agree. ~a
[2017-08-08 09:44:29] - a: Hehehe. I tried two more times. Beat the market again the second time (both times were barely, though) and lost badly the third time. Definitely love the message behind it. I even posted it to a work slack channel since I think it aligns nicely with the message of the Fool. -Paul
[2017-08-07 17:16:28] - paul: try loading again. i think it's fixed now. ~a
[2017-08-07 16:54:49] - a: I beat the market on my first try! I'm an investing genius! -Paul
[2017-08-07 16:52:25] - https://isthestockmarketgoingtocrash.com/ seems to break when the market is closed? -Paul
[2017-08-07 16:30:19] - beat the market game. haha, this is pretty fun. ~a
[2017-08-07 16:22:16] - paul: isthestockmarketgoingtocrash.com. i didn't realize at first you have to click on each of the buttons to get a full picture of the website: "Household Debt", "Market Overvaluation", "Market Volatility", "Public Debt". ~a
[2017-08-07 14:58:36] - paul: looking at the pow on bitcoin cash, though, i'm not too excited about it. the whitepaper said we should be expressing our "acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them" source ~a
[2017-08-07 14:55:57] - paul: you do, but only like 150 usd worth (i guess that was half of your cost-basis
). whether you should sell it, or should have sold it, or not, though, is anybodies guess. ~a[2017-08-07 14:52:12] - aaron: I beat a level before deciding I should do some work.
-Paul[2017-08-07 14:51:24] - a: So... I have some bitcash right now? And I probably should've sold it back when it was 3x its current value?
-Paul[2017-08-07 12:00:37] - google image seach results for atari breakout - aaron
[2017-08-07 11:39:04] - ha.
~a[2017-08-07 11:04:06] - a: I disagree that I can't do anything. I've been making sure to buy things off Amazon and if I ever get my genome sequenced, I will insist on the doctor using an Illumina machine.
-Paul[2017-08-07 11:03:11] - a: Which makes sense, but I've also heard that actively managed funds are theoretically supposed to outperform passive index funds in down markets, so.... *shrug*. -Paul
[2017-08-06 10:45:26] - paul: "next stop is seeing if I can get them all to beat the market" well seeing as we're not allowed to buy or sell, the only thing you can "get them" to do is nothing. basically we can only learn from the challenge, and seeing as we're only experiencing an up-market, i don't think we're even doing that much. ~a
[2017-08-06 10:32:43] - paul: yeah, i think on an up-market, the stories will always be: we're awesome at picking out stocks and it's easy to beat the market. just you wait until we weather a down-market.
~a[2017-08-06 10:31:04] - aaron: i think everybody looks malnourished, sickly, and pale in the real world. i think they wanted the real world to appear harsh, and less awesome. iow, hackers are lame, but become superheroes when they are doing their hacking. ~a
[2017-08-02 16:11:46] - Daniel: "so far".
-Paul[2017-08-02 15:40:27] - daniel: so i don't think you can be an old asian lady. but, i think you could be a fat white dude, or a white dude who's missing both arms, or a white dude with a bunch of weird mechanical holes in his skull or something like that. as long as you're still white - aaron
[2017-08-02 15:38:53] - daniel: well they specifically address this when Neo wakes up and he's like, "wait a minute so I'm played by Keanu Reeves in the real world too?" and Morpheus explained the whole "residual self image" concept, how even when you're dreaming your brain still knows what you look like - aaron
[2017-08-02 15:17:00] - aaron: Oo interesting. I don't think there needs to be any correlation b/w in matrix representation and actual self. If I woke up from the matrix and I was an old Asian lady that would be quite the surprise. -Daniel
[2017-08-02 14:25:55] - but then if they don't overfeed humans who eat too much in the matrix, then there's a chance your residual self image in the matrix would be way out of sync with your real world body. is that a thing? do you think there's any like, really fat people who wake up from the matrix and they're like, "whoa! i'm skinny!?" - aaron
[2017-08-02 14:25:04] - are there fat people in the matrix? i was thinking this over yesterday. if you eat in a lot in the matrix, does your real body become fat too? do the machines deliberately overfeed you? that seems wasteful from the point of view of "humans are just battieries". why waste extra fuel? - aaron
[2017-08-02 12:35:42] - I'm trying to remember if it was mentioned here or in other conversation, but was there any interest from anyone in the Legends of the Five Rings game that's coming out soon? I was considering given the price of admission is relatively low to at least try it out. - mig
[2017-08-02 12:15:12] - you guys are both doing very well so far! -Daniel
[2017-08-02 11:41:38] - a: 12% jump for Illumina today means all of my picks are in the positive now! Next stop is seeing if I can get them all to beat the market. -Paul
[2017-08-02 11:40:50] - aaron: Yeah, we'll see if it sticks around. I'm a little unclear on exactly what kind of tweaking around voting that the states can do, but I think there should be a lot of free reign to experiment with local elections at least. -Paul
[2017-08-02 09:15:46] - paul: oh wow! that never dawned on me that something like this could rise from the state level. i guess i should have remembered that states have flexibility in how their presidential electors are selected, since there's a few kooky states like main who don't go with a "winner takes all" thing. that's really cool. good for maine - aaron
[2017-08-01 13:48:30] - aaron: http://www.salon.com/2017/05/31/ranked-choice-voting-is-still-alive-in-maine-and-heres-why-it-matters/ There are small pockets of reform happening on the state level, though. -Paul
[2017-08-01 13:45:37] - xpovos: yep, hard to imagine how we could eliminate FPtP since employees in two of the three branches of government owe their jobs to it, and it really doesn't seem like the kind of issue the judicial branch would interfere with - aaron
[2017-08-01 13:06:51] - Two-party is baked-into FPtP. Sorry, Amash. The "ruling" party's divisions are always on more display when they are attempting to govern; or immediately after a major failure. We're seeing both right now. Whether it results in a party re-alignment or not is the real question. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-01 12:25:49] - http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/01/politics/jeff-flake-trump/index.html Between Jeff Flake being pretty open about the failures of the Republican Party and Justin Amash saying the two party system needs to die (http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/07/28/amash-libertarian-sessions-trump), might we still see a collapse of the Republican Party after all? -Paul
[2017-08-01 10:33:15] - a: Were it not for GBTC, I think there would be two big stories of this competition so far: SHOP (34% so far!) and you've managed to pick 5 companies that are all up a pretty decent amount (and beating the market?). Well done. -Paul
[2017-08-01 10:10:23] - aaron: Yeah, there are some somewhat odd "benefits" to an all soylent diet. One of the big benefits the creator always like to tout that people sometimes ignored is the convenience of not having to go grocery shopping or dealing with food prep or washing dishes or stuff like that. -Paul
[2017-08-01 08:02:52] - paul: one unforeseen insight caused by my soylent diet: about 98% of my household garbage is food waste. i haven't taken the garbage out in three weeks, the only contents in my trashcan are 10 empty soylent pouches and some junk mail - aaron
[2017-07-28 13:31:48] - So, the Amazon drop sucks, but nice pops by BOFI and SHOP for me today. Putting some more distance between Daniel and I, although I still need a big drop in GBTC before I can get close to Adrian. -Paul
[2017-07-27 12:22:41] - a: So much can change by December, though. Interesting to see where my tentative list of 5 are at by then. -Paul
[2017-07-27 12:19:48] - a: And (C) big companies who have high floors but low ceilings, so I wouldn't be shocked if it just matched the market or slightly under performed. -Paul
[2017-07-27 12:18:51] - a: Like, my first 5 picks were mostly stocks from my portfolio that had gone up a decent amount (but not too much). I used all those up so I'm left with (A) stocks that have run up a ton and maybe too much (B) beaten down stocks that I still believe in for 5+ years but might not turn around within a year... -Paul
[2017-07-27 12:07:58] - a: Ooooh, that's an interesting twist (starting new games that overlap AND you can't use previous picks). I'm game, although it's going to be tough deciding on another 5. -Paul
[2017-07-27 10:58:20] - paul: i dunno, the markup has been fairly consistent in the last few months (70-80%ish)
we'll start another game at the end of the year for 2018? i have a calendar reminder for myself in mid-december. we'll blacklist . . . all of the current-game holdings? so no gbtc, no meli, etc? ~a[2017-07-27 10:08:20] - a: Ugh. It seems like when bitcoin prices crash, GBTC is flat (or just barely goes down). When bitcoin prices surge, then GBTC goes up even more. Your stupid pick is making my game less fun.
-Paul[2017-07-21 12:43:27] - xpovos: my cpa reminds me to try to keep my business earnings relatively consistent and that is very hard to do. ~a
[2017-07-21 12:42:03] - xpovos: hmm, yeah, taxing people at 100% (or some ridiculously high percentage) above a certain amount of money per year (as we discussed yesterday) would seriously worsen that problem. ~a
[2017-07-21 12:22:54] - a: Someone who stumbles on a once-in-a-lifetime invention gets hit even worse. They get the idea to market and their first year they're top 1%, but they never are again and are typically 25K-50K for the rest of their lives even with "residuals." -- Xpovos
[2017-07-21 12:21:51] - a: Any consideration for the variability of the top earners. Most folks in that range don't actually stay there year after year. Even repeat "customers" do it on some kind of rotation frequently. E.g. an artist who sells a new album every 3-4 years. Release year is huge and bumps into the 1%, remaining years far, far lower. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-20 13:42:51] - hmmm. i don't have strong opinions on that, but since calculating net worth is something the government doesn't . . . do . . . i think we'll go with the former: top 1% of earners. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:40:35] - a: Last question for me to mull on: Are we talking strictly income or net worth here when we're talking 1% and taxing? -Paul
[2017-07-20 13:38:33] - paul: yeah go ahead and work. if you understand that "money made over $1m/year" <> "money made by people who MAKE over $1m/year", just believe that i believe that they're strictly different numbers and could easily be different in orders of magnitude if you change 1m/year to top 1%. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:35:32] - a: I think we're arguing different things. I'm trying to confront your point head on but I just don't understand it. Also, we're way off the original debate of if a largely inconsequential but symbolic gesture matters or not. I don't mind continuing this, but I might have to take a break to get some actual work done.
-Paul[2017-07-20 13:34:09] - a: Also, it's worth noting that your proposal puts a smaller dent in the deficit than the Stossel one, which was my point.
-Paul[2017-07-20 13:33:47] - a: "taxes $100b more on the uber rich" Who are the uber rich and how are you getting that money from them? More specifically, how is it different from the clearly insane and unacceptable Stossel proposal? -Paul
[2017-07-20 13:32:51] - they're strictly not similar. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:32:06] - a: I understand that "money made over $1m/year" <> "money made by people who MAKE over $1m/year", but they're similar and I'm wondering what your counter proposal is then. -Paul
[2017-07-20 13:31:12] - moving on . . . i think a tax plan should be smarter than this: wouldn't it make everybody (or at least more people) happy if we said something like this: new adrian tax plan. taxes $100b more on the uber rich, and is tied to $100b in reduced spending. boom, $200b deficit gone! of course, the devil is in the details. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:30:23] - a: In case it wasn't obvious, the "Stossel proposal" was supposed to be insane to show that even an insane proposal (although it's worth noting that there was a French presidential candidate who proposed something similar) doesn't do much. -Paul
[2017-07-20 13:30:13] - that dumb metric is orthogonal to sane tax proposals. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:29:47] - stossal was looking at a dumb metric (money made over $1m/year, not money made by people who MAKE over $1m/year). ~a
[2017-07-20 13:28:36] - proposed insane tax proposal: take 100% of the *bottom* 10% earners. wow, that didn't get us much money, so a more reasonable one must get us even less money. ~a
prev <-> next