And I’m showing you, with sources, that you are wrong on both your points.

It can be reliably and reproducibly measured that diversity is more profitable. It’s as “always” as tylenol helps against headaches, trains for travel, google for searches, gravity for keeping you on the ground. Yes, there technically are times these don’t work, but it works more often than not, and typically there’s other factors when it doesn’t.

And similarly, yes you might not always pick the best candidate, but applying robustly provable best practices will lead you to doing it more often.

Do you go through anything else in life in this manner? That if you can’t do it perfectly, you’d rather not try? I’d wager not, as trying gets you closer to your goals, even when not meeting them immediately.

It seems evident you’re not giving an informed opinion.

The Trump administration has deemed presentations of employed women and poc as part of DEI.

I find it hard to see that describing your employee diversity is discriminatory. And the law is quite settled on this not being discriminatory. Changes are being forced by executive order, many of which have been illegal under the current administration.

Diversity has repeatedly been shown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.

The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.

Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.

Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).

More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.

Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies. Then again, maybe that’s the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.

I’m trying to read your argument generously, and it comes off as: a minority has to work with the enemy to have a chance at achieving some of its goals.

Please correct me, as that doesn’t seem right?

The GOPedo with Trump are still in the popular minority of votes, they haven’t been neither popular majority nor willing to compromise for 50 years.

White Christians aren’t a US minority group, or do you mean that the GOPedo has negotiated with them for the current policies? (With minorities I refer to political minority powers, not necessarily demographics)

Or is it the plurality of voters that should accept working with Trump over Biden to get some of their policy? It would seem that Biden would be the compromise candidate, as Trump doesn’t seem to be pursuing any voter driven policy (health care, jobs, lower inflation, lower cost of living, legalising drugs, etc.), besides perhaps those of further US minorities (Heritage foundation, oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, Russia).

Would you please clarify what you’re arguing for with your picked examples?

Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?

Oh, he did as well? Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.

Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?

How much could you really care if you’re repeatedly and knowingly going against it?

In point 2. you equate your criticism for liberal democracy with that for the scientific method. Your latest argument doesn’t factually or logically hold true for the scientific method.

Thus I must conclude that a. your arguments for point 1. and 2. are different, and b. your statements are uncorrelated even though they partially argue the same point.

I mean, I guessed as much, but taking them as logically connected made for an entertainingly surprising take, and I thought I’d share it with you and the class.

Read together, it looks like you’re preferring people’s democracy because liberal democracy handles too much nuance.

Hadn’t heard that take before!

Selling my organs, or testing risky medical procedures.

It’s also a super common ND thing, you might have utility of looking up their strategies for dealing with it?

But from my own experience, I have those two weeks to find something satisfying to do with the hobby, as well as figure out where it will fit in my life for the next 6 weeks or so, before I get bored with it and can’t pick it up again for at least a year. I’ve had to become very proficient in finding just enough materials, as well as getting rid of them, to not ruin me or drown in hoarded materials.

I’m also prone to taking on too many projects at once, having a two week quarantine period saves me an embarassing lot of times.

Break a project down into two week sprints?

And/or adjust your tempo to account for making stuff sustainable in both amount of novelty, intensity and progression.

Finding ways to get past the two week inspiration high is much of what makes an interest different from a hobby.

Wow, this is an exemplary explanation. Being clear with several levels of cultural knowledge as well as the emotional load behind several meanings and juxtapositions, and still comes across with the humor unscathed.

I dream to one day attain such mastery.

Not only does it spread aggressively through its roots, but it also grafts onto almost anything. The roots connect to other plants and create new hybrid mints.

60 cm is the actual number, which makes it much too real for me…

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I often recommend Spain for US emigrants, quality of life and cultural norms are similar, and Spanish is easier to pick up when you’ve heard it as much as you do from US media.

Netherlands and Scandies have a great reputation, but there’s significant culture shock and you risk feeling more alienated for longer.

Sexuality is often treated as more complex a topic than emotions, but I found a similar meta-study The role of conditioning, learning and dopamine in sexual behavior: A narrative review of animal and human studies, 2014 concluding that conditioning and associative learning does occur around sexuality and can be used as basis for treatment.

From other sources I’ve read, there’s so many influences going into sexuality that it’s impossible to see how it develops, but from a layman’s perspective I’d agree that not reinforcing child abuse probably makes it more rare.

My remaining issue is that with such a simplistic view, any non-normative sexuality can/should be conditioned away. We already have the abusive gay conversion camps, should we go back to do the same with polygamy, bdsm, porn? How much should fashion dictate what sexuality is allowed?

(Roman style orgies seem to have faded in popularity, but tantra and swinging seems to have risen lately, which should we be conditioning away? Who decides?)

Nuanced take coming, take a breath:

I agree that Child Sexual Abuse is a horrible practice along with all other violence and oppression, sexual or not. But the attraction de facto exists and has done for thousands of years, even through intense taboos. It seems our current strategy of shaming and ignoring it has been ineffective. The definition of insanity being repeating the same thing expecting different results and all that.

Short of eugenics (and from previous trials maybe not even then) we might not be able to get rid of it.

So when do we try other ways of dealing with it?

I’m not saying generative AI is the solution, but I’m pretty sure denying harder isn’t it.

This worked, thank you.

Article only says doubly efficient, and H2 to He3 reaction.

To get to .9c we still need a couple million kg of fuel.

Even .1c needs about 40 000 kg of fuel, which is doable, but probably unfeasible.