Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
That's when a Pit-Kill becomes the better option.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
:lol:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:That's when a Pit-Kill becomes the better option.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
It never made sense to me that the gov't awarded religious status to an org that infiltrated the very same gov't.Easy J wrote:Petition to revoke Scientology's tax exempt status:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... mpt-status
Hopefully this is a petition everyone even nominally associated with the atheist/ skeptic community can agree on. If you love kittens you'll sign it.
And here's a complimentary AngryGayPope video:
In any case, look at what life-sucking energy vampire Tom Cruise did to this woman. He needs to be stopped before he can do it again.
http://imgur.com/QOr9HU3.jpg
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Scientology: not even once.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
deLurch wrote:Popehat will almost always side on the cause of everyone deserves their day in court with adequate representation. Here, let me help you find a lawyer.Ape+lust wrote:Yeah, I'm never sure which way Popehat's going to go anymore. Which makes pretty much everything he does a surprise.
He pushes for free speech within the confines of the law.
Sorry, not giving him that grace. I think his inclinations to side with SJWs will cause him to go beyond that poing, because in CA, where he practices, and in MN accusing someone of rape is per se defamation. Yet he defended Myers and Myer's right to defame Shermer. There's no charitable reading of that defense that accusing someone of rape is 'within in confines the law.' Even the press can't do that, and they have more wiggle room/protection than some blogger, which is why they say 'alleged' so damn much.
And I've seen him, at other times, run with the SJW crowd on other issues.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
It's from last year. But I feel almost certain that what the Pit wants now is a shot of SZvan nestled in her love nest.
Full wall facing mirror. Meow.
:cdc:
http://i.imgur.com/p7tqpVF.jpg
Full wall facing mirror. Meow.
:cdc:
http://i.imgur.com/p7tqpVF.jpg
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Since when is Mykeru lawful?Jonathan wrote:This amused me. Also posted to stop Phil's impending pit-kill.
http://shittywebcomics.tumblr.com/image/114984750824
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Scientology didn't go after the government as a whole. They narrowed focus on the IRS who makes decisions on those rules. The bureaucrat in charge didn't care that much about all of the other issues. What the bureucrat cared about was that Scientology was encouraging and funding mounds of small lawsuits against the IRS and its employees from anyone and their mother in order to grind down the IRS. It ended up hurting a small part of the IRS's budget and was affecting their ability to get their job done.Ape+lust wrote:It never made sense to me that the gov't awarded religious status to an org that infiltrated the very same gov't.
Scientology promised to make all of those lawsuits go away overnight if the IRS gave them there way. Not much skin off of the back of the head of the IRS.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Gushing praise of the late queen Andrea in the Graun.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... oung-women
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... oung-women
-
- .
- Posts: 4529
- Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:16 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
SeaWorld and Others Discover That a Hashtag Can Become a Bashtag
This 'common sense' is quite different than what you hear from FtB regarding conference hashtags... Dumbasses.Alison Griswold writes that in an effort to improve its tanking image, SeaWorld launched a new advertising campaign this week to educate the public about its "leadership in the care of killer whales" and other work to protect whales in captivity and in the wild. As part of that head-on initiative, someone at SeaWorld decided to invite Twitter users to pose their questions to the company directly using the hashtag #AskSeaWorld. That was not a good idea as twitter users bashed Sea World relentlessly.. "As easy as it is to make fun of SeaWorld here, the real question is why any company still thinks hosting an open Twitter forum could be good for public relations," writes Griswold. "So maybe SeaWorld's social and PR folks just really have no idea what they're doing. Even so, you'd think they'd have learned from the corporate failures before them."
Let's review some of the times this has backfired, starting with the infamous McDonald's #McDStories Twitter campaign of January 2012. Rather than prompting customers to share their heart-warming McDonald's anecdotes, the hashtag gave critics a highly visible forum to share their top McDonald's horror stories. MacDonalds pulled the campaign within two hours but they discovered that crowd-sourced campaigns are hard to control. Three years later the #McDStories hashtag is still gathering comments. "Twitter Q&As are a terrible idea.," concludes Griswold. "A well-meaning hashtag gives critics an easy way to assemble and voice their complaints in a public forum. Why companies still try them is a great mystery. Maybe they'll all finally learn from SeaWorld and give this one horrible PR trick up for good."
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
As we used to tell the kids - you go to the toilet before you get in the car because we aren't stopping for ages. Surely the same can apply to pilots.Dick Strawkins wrote:Although he will be flying over the same mountain range where the Germanwings crash occurred.bhoytony wrote:I hate to spoil your fun, but Phil is an ex-paratrooper, so I doubt he'll be too scared by your plane crash gif.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Have fun, good luck on being an extra, and try not to worry...
I've flown north out of Nice airport before and the mountains in question are very close by, and both spectacular and desolate from the air.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Why the hell does CFI give Watson oxygen? It's not like she has any expertise in the subject.
http://i.imgur.com/Ne25JeI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Ne25JeI.jpg
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Dworkin was so insane that even a bastion of SJW politics like "RationalWiki" thinks she was "batshit crazy".CaughtUpLockedOut wrote:Gushing praise of the late queen Andrea in the Graun.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... oung-women
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Off to Lucky Charms! Farewell, bandits!
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I'm pretty sure that article did not come from one of the SJW loons that have destroyed the Rationalwiki.Kirbmarc wrote:Dworkin was so insane that even a bastion of SJW politics like "RationalWiki" thinks she was "batshit crazy".CaughtUpLockedOut wrote:Gushing praise of the late queen Andrea in the Graun.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... oung-women
The SJWs do hate Dworkin, but not for the reasons listed here. They hate her because she was transphobic.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
It would be easier to rape someone wearing a skirt if the raper was wearing a skirt too. It goes either way.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Pants are fiddly... And trying to run with pants around tour ankles is difficult.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
You mean Christianity? Good question.Ape+lust wrote:It never made sense to me that the gov't awarded religious status to an org that infiltrated the very same gov't.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Gubbmit doesnt award religious status. Gubbmit lets pretty much anyone claim religious status. If you say you are religious, you are.Ape+lust wrote:It never made sense to me that the gov't awarded religious status to an org that infiltrated the very same gov't.
As much as Id like to see all the clams taken out back and shot, petition has zero chance.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Stop appropriating Irish culture!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Off to Lucky Charms! Farewell, bandits!
Shatterface
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I browsed through this blog by Carrier for a bit. It never ceases to amaze me that people like Carrier, not to mention a few of the commentators in the blog, can write so much and still say so little. But then, I guess that describes most of the blog-o-circle-jerk-o-sphere.Steersman wrote:Michael Shermer: Rapist or Sleaze? (Unless Box Checked for Other)Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:That one.as I think a fair reading of that Shermer post of Carrier's rather clearly shows.
Of maybe some interest, I see that Noelplum weighed-in in one of the comments though I didn't have time to read it.
[Time to call it a day though; night all]
-
- .
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:17 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3688
A little late on the issue but Zach seems to have the essence of it.....
A little late on the issue but Zach seems to have the essence of it.....
-
- .
- Posts: 5470
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Michael Shermer: Rapist or Sleaze? (Unless Box Checked for Other)
In the comments, Dr. Carrier claims that science relies on eye-witness testimony as evidence, making it clear that he has no fucking clue how science actually operates.
Here is one of the more entertaining explanations of why science does not use eye-witness evidence:[youtube]9BRDCxNEuyg[/youtube]
In the comments, Dr. Carrier claims that science relies on eye-witness testimony as evidence, making it clear that he has no fucking clue how science actually operates.
Here is one of the more entertaining explanations of why science does not use eye-witness evidence:[youtube]9BRDCxNEuyg[/youtube]
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
As the resident Carrier expert/dickrider, I want to offer a bit more nuance to that. He is just shit at communicating online. He doesn't actually think science relies on eyewitness testimony (check out Sense and Goodness Without God for his full rundown on epistemology), he just acts as if everyone has read everything he's ever written, and he can swap from precise to general to metaphorical communication on the fly and it's the observer's fault if they don't follow it in the context of the entire corpus of his text.Billie from Ockham wrote:Michael Shermer: Rapist or Sleaze? (Unless Box Checked for Other)
In the comments, Dr. Carrier claims that science relies on eye-witness testimony as evidence, making it clear that he has no fucking clue how science actually operates.
Here is one of the more entertaining explanations of why science does not use eye-witness evidence:[youtube]9BRDCxNEuyg[/youtube]
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I've lost at least 10 lbs these past few months on the brush-dragging-burn-pile diet. I'll keep it off on the work-horses-pick-manure diet. I'll put it back on next fall when I switch over to the jigsaw-puzzle-on-a-rainy-day diet.BarnOwl wrote:Good point … I tend to lose a little weight on a vegetarian (and especially vegan) diet. However, I think once we hit middle age, exercise becomes the real key to weight loss and management. PeeZus seems quite sedentary, and I'd bet the walk to my lab building from the parking lot is further than the distance from his house to his lab building. I also walk my dogs ~ 2 miles each day, and even that is not nearly enough: weight maintenance requires swimming, running, and cycling as well. It's just one of the realities of aging.Ape+lust wrote: I wouldn't ask Myers if mustard should go on a hot dog. He looks like he's gained 30 pounds since becoming vegetarian. How did he do that? :lol:
-
- .
- Posts: 5470
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
If being able to have a complete discussion of Dr. Carrier's blog entries requires reading any of his books, then I shall either opt out of said discussions or will be in the corner with a ball-peen hammer.jet_lagg wrote:As the resident Carrier expert/dickrider, I want to offer a bit more nuance to that. He is just shit at communicating online. He doesn't actually think science relies on eyewitness testimony (check out Sense and Goodness Without God for his full rundown on epistemology), he just acts as if everyone has read everything he's ever written, and he can swap from precise to general to metaphorical communication on the fly and it's the observer's fault if they don't follow it in the context of the entire corpus of his text.
With that said, I don't see how "science uses eye-witness testimony as evidence" can be a nuanced or short-hand expression of anything that comes close to correct (unless we allow Steersman or the FtB crowd to control the meanings of words).
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Kirbmarc wrote:Since when is Mykeru lawful?Jonathan wrote:This amused me. Also posted to stop Phil's impending pit-kill.
http://shittywebcomics.tumblr.com/image/114984750824
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
It can't be used as short-hand. Note usefully anyway. It's the sort of thing I only know he doesn't really mean because I've read the majority of everything he's ever written, specifically the book I mentioned, which contradicts the idea science is based on eyewitness testimony, so I know he must have meant something else. It's the sort of statement that, when confronted or questioned about, most people would say "oh, you're right. Very poorly worded. What I meant was..."Billie from Ockham wrote: If being able to have a complete discussion of Dr. Carrier's blog entries requires reading any of his books, then I shall either opt out of said discussions or will be in the corner with a ball-peen hammer.
With that said, I don't see how "science uses eye-witness testimony as evidence" can be a nuanced or short-hand expression of anything that comes close to correct (unless we allow Steersman or the FtB crowd to control the meanings of words).
Honestly, Carrier agrees with the general pit consensus on many, maybe even most issues. I think he just vastly overrates his knowledge of all topics because he really does read a shit ton, and thus feels anyone who disagrees with him hasn't put in their due diligence, is being purposely wrong to advance some nefarious agenda. That's basically it. He's completely uncharitable.
This morning I had a conversation with a friend about this article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... s-say.html
They found it ridiculous (in truth, I think they only read the headline) and got rather snippy with me when I defended it. In the course of the conversation they got several matters of fact wrong (e.g. they said everyone knows before the child is born if it will have down syndrome, abortions after 24 weeks do not occur in the U.S.). I corrected them and moved on. Carrier seems like the sort who would do a literal bayesian calculation in front of you, using those two data points, to demonstrate why you were a liar and possible sociopath, and literally everything you ever wrote prior or at some future period could be ignored. I do my best to remember people are a little more complicated than you can determine based off of the very limited information you get from online communication.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I had a dream last night which featured Oolon working a teppanyaki table. Strangest thing was that he appeared to be doing a pretty reasonable job of it.Ape+lust wrote:Oolon teaches Cosby not to rape.
...or maybe he's teaching Cosby not to steal his trademark wobble-eye spazz-face.
...or maybe he's raping Cosby.
I dunno. I made it, but what's going on is a mystery.
That's all I can remember of it, so I have no idea if it actually evolved into a nightmare of having Oolon's fare taste pretty good. Btw, It'd be impossible of me to eat anything prepared by Oolon IRL, as I'd always be wondering where he got the cooking fat from.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Fucking hell. We've got enough e-celebs in GamerGate already.Sunder wrote:Kirbmarc wrote:Since when is Mykeru lawful?Jonathan wrote:This amused me. Also posted to stop Phil's impending pit-kill.
http://shittywebcomics.tumblr.com/image/114984750824
-
- .
- Posts: 5470
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
In most cases, I can accept this (if for no other reason than doing it myself). But not in this case, because his entire point was that courts and scientists use the same reasoning and evidence, such that his points about Michael Shermer were "scientific." So, as soon as he says "well, I didn't really mean that scientists use eye-witness testimony," his argument evaporates.jet_lagg wrote:It can't be used as short-hand. Note usefully anyway. It's the sort of thing I only know he doesn't really mean because I've read the majority of everything he's ever written, specifically the book I mentioned, which contradicts the idea science is based on eyewitness testimony, so I know he must have meant something else. It's the sort of statement that, when confronted or questioned about, most people would say "oh, you're right. Very poorly worded. What I meant was..."Billie from Ockham wrote: If being able to have a complete discussion of Dr. Carrier's blog entries requires reading any of his books, then I shall either opt out of said discussions or will be in the corner with a ball-peen hammer.
With that said, I don't see how "science uses eye-witness testimony as evidence" can be a nuanced or short-hand expression of anything that comes close to correct (unless we allow Steersman or the FtB crowd to control the meanings of words).
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I know he means all sources of knowledge eventually collapse into one category (for example, even the statistical analysis and mathematical models science uses technically rely on "eye-witness" testimony to the fact that they exist and say what they do), but you're right, it's an absurd way of trying to make it seem we can be more certain of Shermer's guilt than we actually can be, by throwing around the word "science". I get up in arms when people use the same tactics to say we can be scientifically certain false rape claims don't happen.Billie from Ockham wrote:
In most cases, I can accept this (if for no other reason than doing it myself). But not in this case, because his entire point was that courts and scientists use the same reasoning and evidence, such that his points about Michael Shermer were "scientific." So, as soon as he says "well, I didn't really mean that scientists use eye-witness testimony," his argument evaporates.
If he hadn't decided to make such a spectacle of it writing an epic blog with such a provocative headline, I doubt many here would disagree with his general point. If the witness is speaking the truth (which is certainly plausible), Shermer is a sleaze (at least based on how most people would interpret that word) or a rapist. He completely ignores, or at least considers negligible, the fact that the witness might not be telling the truth, not out of an intentional lie even, but out of being completely shit-faced and misinterpreting/remembering events later on. Personally, the number of similar accounts does make it seem Shermer is complete crass in his approach to getting laid at cons, but that doesn't make so nearly damning a headline.
"Michael Shermer: More Crass Than Me in His Attempts to Fuck Other Men's Wives at Cons?"
-
- .
- Posts: 5470
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I don't want to either drag this out or force you to defense Dr. Carrier, but his point was that legal evidence in court is the same as scientific evidence elsewhere, and that is patent nonsense. If nothing else, legal evidence (and anything like it, such as the "evidence" against Michael Shermer provided, second-hand, by PZ Myers) concerns specific events. It's a branch of history, not science. That - in my view - is the key to his self-serving error: thinking that historians are scientists by default or use anything like the same reasoning or evidence. History and science are completely different and one of the best ways to see this is to focus on how each discipline approaches eye-witness testimony: one relies on it almost entirely; the other ignores almost entirely.
Therefore, it is not a small "oops" mistake to claim that science uses eye-witness testimony as evidence. It's a fundamental error, instead.
Therefore, it is not a small "oops" mistake to claim that science uses eye-witness testimony as evidence. It's a fundamental error, instead.
-
- .
- Posts: 5470
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I want my edit button....
-
- .
- Posts: 1728
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:06 am
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Looking back through my Facebook feed during an idle afternoon, and rediscovered this...
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6095014912/hDC2524F0/
(Good luck with the audition Phil!)
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6095014912/hDC2524F0/
(Good luck with the audition Phil!)
-
- .
- Posts: 5470
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Seriously need edit button.
My reply might appear to ignore your idea that all knowledge boils down to being the same. That is something I completely reject. There are at least two types of knowledge: that which only concerns specific events (in the past), which does not need to include why the event occurred, and that which concerns cause-effect relations, which does not require that the cause-effect chain has ever triggered or ever will trigger.
My reply might appear to ignore your idea that all knowledge boils down to being the same. That is something I completely reject. There are at least two types of knowledge: that which only concerns specific events (in the past), which does not need to include why the event occurred, and that which concerns cause-effect relations, which does not require that the cause-effect chain has ever triggered or ever will trigger.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I'm not really trying to defend Carrier, though in the process of defending this idea I'll probably end up doing so in part. When I say knowledge boils down to one type I'm saying that occurs at philosophical bedrock of the Descartes variety, not at various disciplines, which are themselves towers constructed on different areas of that bedrock which can, and should, draw distinctions between different sorts of knowledge. It's sort of like Psychohistory in Foundation. If you could understand a complex system well enough you can make predictions about it using far simpler systems. That, in theory, should be true of everything. My decision to engage in this conversation could, again in principle but not in practice (for now), be explained in terms of the interaction of fundamental physical forces. We could construct something like that for eyewitness testimony (light bouncing off objects activating photoreceptive cells, triggering cascades of chemical responses, writing a memory in the virtual machine of the brain), and from there deduce how accurate the memories will be, but there are obviously easier ways, which to continue the metaphor, I see as like building bridges between the heights of the towers, rather than going back down to foundation and starting from scratch.Billie from Ockham wrote:Seriously need edit button.
My reply might appear to ignore your idea that all knowledge boils down to being the same. That is something I completely reject. There are at least two types of knowledge: that which only concerns specific events (in the past), which does not need to include why the event occurred, and that which concerns cause-effect relations, which does not require that the cause-effect chain has ever triggered or ever will trigger.
So I see the court systems and historians, when they get it right, using something similar to science, only with much, much less data (because the systems they study are so much more complex and events often only happen once, as you say). They just often don't know that's what they're doing at a foundational level. I think if they did, if people did in general, you'd see a lot more humility when making declarations in the social sciences. Amusingly enough, when drinking I'll often shout angrily that social sciences don't deserve the title. Having many contradictions in my mind doesn't appear to bother me.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
The algorithm that produces Jessica Valenti headlines really needs upgrading:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -body-hair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -body-hair
-
- .
- Posts: 6257
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Social media also protects women from seeing giant dongs, bleeding, shitting asses and hairy scrotes.Gefan wrote:The algorithm that produces Jessica Valenti headlines really needs upgrading:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -body-hair
When will society accept male bodies?
Anyway, clickbaiter gonna clickbait.
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
If I may, let me offer an alternate interpretation of the intent behind Carrier, PhD's words:jet_lagg wrote:I know he means all sources of knowledge eventually collapse into one category (for example, even the statistical analysis and mathematical models science uses technically rely on "eye-witness" testimony to the fact that they exist and say what they do), but you're right, it's an absurd way of trying to make it seem we can be more certain of Shermer's guilt than we actually can be, by throwing around the word "science". I get up in arms when people use the same tactics to say we can be scientifically certain false rape claims don't happen.Billie from Ockham wrote:
In most cases, I can accept this (if for no other reason than doing it myself). But not in this case, because his entire point was that courts and scientists use the same reasoning and evidence, such that his points about Michael Shermer were "scientific." So, as soon as he says "well, I didn't really mean that scientists use eye-witness testimony," his argument evaporates.
If he hadn't decided to make such a spectacle of it writing an epic blog with such a provocative headline, I doubt many here would disagree with his general point. If the witness is speaking the truth (which is certainly plausible), Shermer is a sleaze (at least based on how most people would interpret that word) or a rapist. He completely ignores, or at least considers negligible, the fact that the witness might not be telling the truth, not out of an intentional lie even, but out of being completely shit-faced and misinterpreting/remembering events later on. Personally, the number of similar accounts does make it seem Shermer is complete crass in his approach to getting laid at cons, but that doesn't make so nearly damning a headline.
"Michael Shermer: More Crass Than Me in His Attempts to Fuck Other Men's Wives at Cons?"
He's a twat.
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Who protects us from Jessica Valenti?James Caruthers wrote:Social media also protects women from seeing giant dongs, bleeding, shitting asses and hairy scrotes.Gefan wrote:The algorithm that produces Jessica Valenti headlines really needs upgrading:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -body-hair
When will society accept male bodies?
Anyway, clickbaiter gonna clickbait.
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Ed Brayton praises Rebecca Watson for her refusal to speak at cons that have less than 35% womyn speakers:
https://archive.today/yJKUn
I really like what Rebecca Watson does. She refuses to speak at a conference if there aren’t at least 35% female speakers. And just as important, she has a list of women who can speak on a wide range of subjects. She isn’t just saying she won’t do it, she’s offering to help them find women speakers. When the old and middle-aged white guys get asked to interview for projects like this, we can do the same thing. We can recommend specific people that will help get them a broader and more complete picture of atheists.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Only looking at the UK edition seems to have done the trick for me...I thought she'd quit. That's long it has been since I saw her nonsense.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Who protects us from Jessica Valenti?
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
If all women refused to speak unless there were X number of women speakers how would there ever be any women speakers?
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Find and replace works okay except for things like "government" which happen to have "men" in them.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Forensic scientists may testify in court but disagreements about their evidence will be adjudicated by 'peers' (the jury) who are actually no such thing. Also, both the prosecution and the defence choose scientist prepared to say what suits their case giving the impression that scientits are split down the middle on many subjects.jet_lagg wrote:So I see the court systems and historians, when they get it right, using something similar to science, only with much, much less data (because the systems they study are so much more complex and events often only happen once, as you say). They just often don't know that's what they're doing at a foundational level. I think if they did, if people did in general, you'd see a lot more humility when making declarations in the social sciences. Amusingly enough, when drinking I'll often shout angrily that social sciences don't deserve the title. Having many contradictions in my mind doesn't appear to bother me.
Science is ultimately, and rightly, elitist in that all people are not equal: some are simply more knowledgable than others.
And science doesn't - or shouldn't - decide between conflicting theories based on who sounds more plausible on the witness stand.
Shatterface
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Patriarchy!Sunder wrote:Find and replace works okay except for things like "government" which happen to have "men" in them.
Shatterface
-
- .
- Posts: 4024
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
The best thing about this, it isn't even true. Watson has been sighted at conferences lately where the female speaker to male ratio is lower than 20%, if that. And Sunder's got a point: if female speakers refused to speak at conferences that didn't have such and such percentage of female speakers, how would the amount of female speakers at conferences ever increase? Say hypothetically if a woman was said to speak at a conference and she had the absolute rule that she wouldn't attend a conference that didn't have this many other female speakers, and say hypothetically that there is one that meets her criteria but at the eleventh hour, say a couple of days before the conference is to take place, most of them dropped out due to unforeseen circumstances (or just a few to mark the attendance rate below the absolute percentage), would she cancel her talk? No. No, she would not. And I imagine that were she invited to more conferences in the following months, I don't think she would give a toss about the ratio. Case in point: Rebecca Watson.free thoughtpolice wrote:Ed Brayton praises Rebecca Watson for her refusal to speak at cons that have less than 35% womyn speakers:https://archive.today/yJKUn
I really like what Rebecca Watson does. She refuses to speak at a conference if there aren’t at least 35% female speakers. And just as important, she has a list of women who can speak on a wide range of subjects. She isn’t just saying she won’t do it, she’s offering to help them find women speakers. When the old and middle-aged white guys get asked to interview for projects like this, we can do the same thing. We can recommend specific people that will help get them a broader and more complete picture of atheists.
By the way, I like how Ed Brayton is praising Epstein, but he seems to have missed the part where Epstein says, "Maybe some of us just want to put greater emphasis on who we are, rather than on what we’re not." Except for when you're dealing with A+, right, Ed?
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Thunderf00t's latest:
[youtube]DkDH8w4Eag4[/youtube]
[youtube]DkDH8w4Eag4[/youtube]
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I wonder what would happen if anyone were to post the (possibly) numerous appearances of Watson where she was the only woman on the panels (or the number were a lot less than her goal? Wasn't the percentage higher at one point? I somehow suspect that this information would not see the light of day.Pitchguest wrote:The best thing about this, it isn't even true. Watson has been sighted at conferences lately where the female speaker to male ratio is lower than 20%, if that. And Sunder's got a point: if female speakers refused to speak at conferences that didn't have such and such percentage of female speakers, how would the amount of female speakers at conferences ever increase? Say hypothetically if a woman was said to speak at a conference and she had the absolute rule that she wouldn't attend a conference that didn't have this many other female speakers, and say hypothetically that there is one that meets her criteria but at the eleventh hour, say a couple of days before the conference is to take place, most of them dropped out due to unforeseen circumstances (or just a few to mark the attendance rate below the absolute percentage), would she cancel her talk? No. No, she would not. And I imagine that were she invited to more conferences in the following months, I don't think she would give a toss about the ratio. Case in point: Rebecca Watson.free thoughtpolice wrote:Ed Brayton praises Rebecca Watson for her refusal to speak at cons that have less than 35% womyn speakers:https://archive.today/yJKUn
I really like what Rebecca Watson does. She refuses to speak at a conference if there aren’t at least 35% female speakers. And just as important, she has a list of women who can speak on a wide range of subjects. She isn’t just saying she won’t do it, she’s offering to help them find women speakers. When the old and middle-aged white guys get asked to interview for projects like this, we can do the same thing. We can recommend specific people that will help get them a broader and more complete picture of atheists.
By the way, I like how Ed Brayton is praising Epstein, but he seems to have missed the part where Epstein says, "Maybe some of us just want to put greater emphasis on who we are, rather than on what we’re not." Except for when you're dealing with A+, right, Ed?
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/a ... 322230.jpgSunder wrote:If all women refused to speak unless there were X number of women speakers how would there ever be any women speakers?
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
The best thing about this, it isn't even true. Watson has been sighted at conferences lately where the female speaker to male ratio is lower than 20%, if that. And Sunder's got a point: if female speakers refused to speak at conferences that didn't have such and such percentage of female speakers, how would the amount of female speakers at conferences ever increase? Say hypothetically if a woman was said to speak at a conference and she had the absolute rule that she wouldn't attend a conference that didn't have this many other female speakers, and say hypothetically that there is one that meets her criteria but at the eleventh hour, say a couple of days before the conference is to take place, most of them dropped out due to unforeseen circumstances (or just a few to mark the attendance rate below the absolute percentage), would she cancel her talk? No. No, she would not. And I imagine that were she invited to more conferences in the following months, I don't think she would give a toss about the ratio. Case in point: Rebecca Watson.Badger3k wrote:https://archive.today/yJKUnPitchguest wrote:
I really like what Rebecca Watson does. She refuses to speak at a conference if there aren’t at least 35% female speakers. And just as important, she has a list of women who can speak on a wide range of subjects. She isn’t just saying she won’t do it, she’s offering to help them find women speakers. When the old and middle-aged white guys get asked to interview for projects like this, we can do the same thing. We can recommend specific people that will help get them a broader and more complete picture of atheists.
By the way, I like how Ed Brayton is praising Epstein, but he seems to have missed the part where Epstein says, "Maybe some of us just want to put greater emphasis on who we are, rather than on what we’re not." Except for when you're dealing with A+, right, Ed?[/quote]
I wonder what would happen if anyone were to post the (possibly) numerous appearances of Watson where she was the only woman on the panels (or the number were a lot less than her goal? Wasn't the percentage higher at one point? I somehow suspect that this information would not see the light of day.[/quote]
Do her own Quizotron shows count? Total sausagefests, those are.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Better still if you post PICS of her on otherwise all male panels.Badger3k wrote:I wonder what would happen if anyone were to post the (possibly) numerous appearances of Watson where she was the only woman on the panels (or the number were a lot less than her goal? Wasn't the percentage higher at one point? I somehow suspect that this information would not see the light of day.
Shatterface
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Badger 3K wrote:
If you (or anyone else) can provide examples of Becky breaking her rule I would gladly post it. The Quizotron examples are already up in the comment section at Dispatches.I wonder what would happen if anyone were to post the (possibly) numerous appearances of Watson where she was the only woman on the panels (or the number were a lot less than her goal? Wasn't the percentage higher at one point? I somehow suspect that this information would not see the light of day.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Link?free thoughtpolice wrote:Badger 3K wrote:If you (or anyone else) can provide examples of Becky breaking her rule I would gladly post it. The Quizotron examples are already up in the comment section at Dispatches.I wonder what would happen if anyone were to post the (possibly) numerous appearances of Watson where she was the only woman on the panels (or the number were a lot less than her goal? Wasn't the percentage higher at one point? I somehow suspect that this information would not see the light of day.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
True. I like Kahneman's idea that our goal should be to eliminate human judgement from systems whenever possible. An algorithm won't deny your parole because it's hungry.Shatterface as Guest wrote:
Forensic scientists may testify in court but disagreements about their evidence will be adjudicated by 'peers' (the jury) who are actually no such thing. Also, both the prosecution and the defence choose scientist prepared to say what suits their case giving the impression that scientits are split down the middle on many subjects.
Science is ultimately, and rightly, elitist in that all people are not equal: some are simply more knowledgable than others.
And science doesn't - or shouldn't - decide between conflicting theories based on who sounds more plausible on the witness stand.
Shatterface
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... RmqbOHdXao
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
https://archive.today/zc6w8Really? wrote:Link?free thoughtpolice wrote:Badger 3K wrote:If you (or anyone else) can provide examples of Becky breaking her rule I would gladly post it. The Quizotron examples are already up in the comment section at Dispatches.I wonder what would happen if anyone were to post the (possibly) numerous appearances of Watson where she was the only woman on the panels (or the number were a lot less than her goal? Wasn't the percentage higher at one point? I somehow suspect that this information would not see the light of day.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I can't really use the Pit anymore, not since I upgraded the OS on my iPad.
Now almost everytime I click off the Pit tab to another site to copy content, when I return the Pit reloads and logs me out. Any half completed comment is lost.
I had taken to copying the comment so it could be re-pasted after relogging in. But this doesn't work if you copied something from the other tab.
I could construct comments entirely in a WP of some sort. And then copy them in one fell swoop. But really? I can't be arsed.
Now almost everytime I click off the Pit tab to another site to copy content, when I return the Pit reloads and logs me out. Any half completed comment is lost.
I had taken to copying the comment so it could be re-pasted after relogging in. But this doesn't work if you copied something from the other tab.
I could construct comments entirely in a WP of some sort. And then copy them in one fell swoop. But really? I can't be arsed.