Because that's a nonsensical strawman; those things aren't even related.
Personally, I see any employer advertising for a position with stricter requirements than what they'll hire as advertising their own dishonesty. It just makes them look bad.
It's mildly dishonest, but it does help you as the employer get closer to the ideal fit for the position. Especially one that is likely posted to a public forum.
The fact that candidates that pre-select themselves out of being chosen is not really a big concern. Why should it be? The way around this is knowing exactly who it is you want for the job, but in that case I wouldn't be posting the job in a public forum. It's kind of what recruiters are intended for.
Somewhere in Scandinavia. I don't know much about the area other than they score among the highest on self-reported happiness indicies[0]. I'm curious about what cultural differences are responsible for that result, and I suppose I'd like to enjoy them for myself.
Living in Copenhagen, Denmark I'm not sure that moving here necessarily will make you more happy. Maybe the results would be different if one looked at what makes expats happy when moving to a new country.
That "eventually" word is killing me. When we leave these sorts of issues up to the forces in power, they never seem to get done. What we get instead are watered-down, doomed-to-fail, design-by-political-committee "solutions" such as the ACA.
I think we need an official roadmap. I think the public deserves a direct voice in guiding the direction of the country. At the very least, I think we need to set in stone a clear vision of what milestones we want to achieve as a nation.
My entire lifetime, our leadership has repeatedly demonstrated it is incapable of moving us in any single direction long enough and far enough to be meaningful (aside from war, perhaps). Let us choose the direction; let them work-out the implementation.
/end rant
I'm just speaking my mind. What do you all think? Is this even a "good" idea? How could we even begin to make this happen?
I think we need an official roadmap. I think the public deserves a direct voice in guiding the direction of the country. At the very least, I think we need to set in stone a clear vision of what milestones we want to achieve as a nation.
My entire lifetime, our leadership has repeatedly demonstrated it is incapable of moving us in any single direction long enough and far enough to be meaningful (aside from war, perhaps). Let us choose the direction; let them work-out the implementation.
To some extent the back and forth you talk about is evidence that the public doesn't agree on the direction to take.
Sure, there's never going to be unanimous agreement. Put it to a vote. I'm mainly just talking about letting the public choose which issues the leaders should focus on, and holding them accountable if they don't.
How would that be different than what we have now?
I think there are things that would be incremental improvements (like having more members in the House of Representatives) and maybe better districts, but most elections have the candidates crafting a message based at least partly on what they hear from people and pretty high desire to get reelected (so they have to at least appear to follow through on their message).
There's a lot of things I see people proposing that end up boiling down to wishing that others would 'vote better'. That's a tough problem to solve.
In and of itself, the attempt to colonize Mars probably won't do much for the species. The value is in actually going through the paces: developing primary technologies, techniques, protocols, and doing research, especially observing how organisms (ultimately, humans) are affected by extraterrestrial life, etc.
If the worst comes to pass and the species needs to throw a hail mary, I have to think our chances of success would be improved (even if slightly) if we were to have these sorts of details ironed-out in advance.
There's also the terraforming possibility, even though that's still a long, long way away. It may turn out to be easier to create a habitable atmosphere from scratch than to make even relatively small changes to our own, since the Earth already has all these complex feedback loops. There's also not as much margin for error here because, as The Tick would say, this is where we keep all our stuff.
Regarding 3: The encryption scheme we put into place probably isn't going to slow down a motivated actor. We have master decryption passphrases that are regularly disseminated among the admins and could foreseeably end up in the wild (if nothing else, it wouldn't be difficult to social engineer).
And recently, we've started transitioning to new encryption software. Our implementation of the software prohibits more than one encryption passphrase per machine. So, in order to share machines between employees, organizations have begun sharing the same passphrase across all the organization's machines.
Source: HPES employee working on NASA ACES contract
> If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their [sic] racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable?
Glossing over the faulty logic, is your entire motive for posting here is to distress the top-level commenter? You say you're not here to sway opinions. So you're just here to troll for the sake of trolling? I'll admit this is refreshingly candid, but could you just refrain from posting in the first place?
Again, not trolling, just giving a place for the educated among us to click a button and say "hey, this stupid racist shit doesn't represent the HN community"
Quite frankly the idea that we should treat all ideas with civility and respect doesn't really cut it in reality.
I consider Hacker News one of the few open minded forums today. Where a comment adds value, it's sometimes up voted. Your original comment didn't add value to the discussion and I doubt its accuracy.
Take for example, during early conflicts (around 0AD), people of all social standings were known to move from city to city. The Mongols (although much later, 1200s) used this mass migration as a technique to weaken economies. So, travel is not anything like what you described.
The world's history is full of far more diversity than we give credit for.
The post I was responding too was saying literally nothing about the mongols using mass migration as a technique to weaken economies. It's irrelevant to the point I was making.
It doesn't surprise me that most of the people attacking the way I'm speaking also have a backdoor opinion about the content as well.
>"Again, not trolling, just giving a place for the educated among us to click a button and say "hey, this stupid racist shit doesn't represent the HN community""
Ironically, that last part is probably a good part of why you are being down voted.
I honestly have no problems with it. I know these are controversial issues today and taking the stance of "we shouldn't have to put up with racist rhetoric in 2016 in the developed world" is not going to be a popular one, especially when you use sarcasm to convey it.
There are assuredly people who will say "it's 2016, I should be able to have my own opinions, whatever they are, and be treated as equal to others" I disagree.
When a white person laments about how much "we've given up" since 1910 it is a racist action. Sorry the truth hurts. It's similar to those that look back on the 50s as a golden age in America. Sure, it's golden if you're a white male.
We haven't given up shit since 1910, progress has been unimaginable and it's actually EASIER to travel internationally now than it was then. So yeah, if you're going to pretend like 1910 was better for this shit in some way, it's only going to be for a very select group of people.
> I see that the word "racism" has ceased to have meaning.
This is called "gaslighting". You have encountered a use of the term "racist" that you think is poor usage. Instead of confining your criticism to the specific usage of the term, you declare any and all uses of the term "meaningless".
It's intellectually lazy. Perhaps your definition of racist is "openly and aggressively advocating against one of three or four theorized racial groups". Perhaps you don't like my definition, "any and all behaviors which reinforce the systematic oppression of people based on race or other markers connected to race".
But rather than stand up for what you believe is a sensible use of the word, you wipe your hands the entire discussion. It's a childish tactic.
Personally, I think "racism" is a vital word, and it's vital that it retain a broad definition applicable to behaviors currently committed by well intentioned people (as it was 100 years ago). I believe the notion that "racism" traditionally refers to socially deplorable behavior is a false understanding of history and etymology. You seem to disagree, I would encourage you to argue your perspective.
"Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting his or her own memory, perception, and sanity."
I don't believe that I have attempted to manipulate anyone into doubting their memory, perception, or sanity.
> But rather than stand up for what you believe is a sensible use of the word, you wipe your hands the entire discussion. It's a childish tactic.
I stand by what I said -- If the usage above is valid, then I can infer nothing useful based on the term 'racism'.
To spell it out in full, recall the start of this thread, where someone was accused for racism because they named a policy that was in effect in 1914. _Note that the policy was not called racist. The only objection was the date.
So, based on that usage above, one meaning of racist seems to be the following conjunction:
'Expressed approval for a policy' AND 'That policy was in place at a time when racism was a problem'
And given that racism has been a problem at any point in time, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that someone had approved for some policy at some point in time.
If this is a valid meaning for racism, then someone being called racist gives me no information about the person. I don't believe this is a useful meaning.
If you don't think a good portion of the right wing in first world countries wouldn't gladly return to that state of affairs maybe you should take a look at the Trump campaign. Facism is alive and well my friend.
What, where most people have no air conditioning, no cars, no plumbing, no internet, no refrigeration? Where most jobs are back breaking subsistence farming, and almost all the rest are marginally better factory jobs?
If you think most humans would return to that, regardless of political affiliation, you're crazy.
No to a time where people are murdered simply because of their race. Politicians running for office with 30-40% of the popular vote are calling for nuking countries with no concern for collateral damage... what would you call that?
> Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me a good term for the people like the ones that murdered most of my grandmother's family because of their race.
This is what you said.
Nukes are just a convenient way to eliminate an entire race these days. If you don't think right wingers calling for the middle east to be nuked is in any way related we're probably done here.
You're the one who asked me what you should call the people that murdered your grandmother because of her race since I'm using the term "racist" too loosely for your taste.
I'm saying, call them racists just like the people today that would gladly return to a time where people get killed just because of their race, as evident by their espoused politics.
Oh I disagree the word racist evokes a pretty emotional response regardless of how many times you use it. 2016 and all that. Just look at how much effort you're putting in to trying to prove what a "real racist" is?
No you should probably accept that racism is part of the human condition and acting like it doesn't exist is about as intellectually riveting as the latest Micheal Bay film.
It's not easier if you're from the wrong country, or surprise, of wrong color or religion. Refugee crisis is still here. So saying what you said can just as easily be labeled racist.
> Well, since you started the incivility: you're a complete and utter dingbat. Not every issue is about race. This issue isn't about race.
If you think you can have a discussion about immigration in 2016 using a "sensible, law-abiding Englishman in 1914" as your "look at what we've lost"... I just don't know what to tell you. The lack of you getting why there's a huge racial component to posting something like that... well, it's kind of beyond me.
Context matters, there's no reason to pretend like we've lost anything since 1914. The only people who have lost anything are the most privileged of people on this planet.
edit. Really not surprisingly looking at your post history "people's wages should be dictated by the market" haha why don't you just make your username "PrivilegeOwns69"
And the contention here is that it's inappropriate (unless you mean to suggest that diseases are sentient or otherwise capable of intention to foment terror) and overplayed, and it ultimately corrodes the meaning of and devalues the word.
Personally, I see any employer advertising for a position with stricter requirements than what they'll hire as advertising their own dishonesty. It just makes them look bad.