Corporations have no duty to lie and break the law.

The us government does targeted hacking, where they pick a target and then maybe alter the hardware on one device. They are really good at it. The CCP method is more like a fishing trawler. They suck ip everything and then sift.

The government can just âoeraise taxesâ, eh? Read the history of the Obama era budget fiasco to see how well that goes. Western governments everywhere want to inflate away their debts, because that allows them to spend without taxing.

Your wrong about one thing. Yes 49% female would be sexist, but 100% female would be totally âoeequitableâ

Thatâ(TM)s been illegal for half a century. The grievance collectors make this stuff up.

Indeed, I love how the summary leaves off the context that China is involved in a massive brazen spying campaign.

That's just ONE experiment, and it doesn't show what you want it to. If adults had such an overwhealming influence on gender development, then transgenderism wouldn't exist. David Reimer would believe he was a girl. There's an extensive confluence of different lines of evidence that lead to the same conclusion: the biological basis of gendered behaviour is strong. Reductive motivated denial of this fact leads to misogyny towards typical femininity, and misandry towards men in general... a crisis of authenticity.

Social constructions need to interface with the reality of human nature... because that's where unnecessary suffering is creating. If you put your head in the sand, your movement is going to hurt people because there's far more ways to make something worse than to make it better.

The simple truth is sex and gender have profound influences on behaviour and interests. And to a very small subset of skills. (Boys are better at throwing, girls at reading emotions.) Failure to observe this fact is causing active harm today.

Well, reality isn't contingent on what you believe.

• There's nothing inherently moral about this position. Perhaps the most inhumane and extensive atrocities were committed under such an blank slate ideology. The fact of human nature guides what is and isn't humane.
• There's entire wings of academia dedicated to the motivated denial of human nature. The philosopher of science, Larry Loudan, referred to it as the 2nd biggest example of societal anti-intellectualism after American elections.
• The door has swung far to far towards blank slatism. There's an absurd amount of evidence for the strong biological basis of behaviour, including gender differences, and behaviour more generally. There's people who's role in life is to simply bury this fact. See Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for extensive documentation of this motivated denial.

Social justice is ruining the academy. It's boring, reductive, and anti-intellectual.

Thankfully science doesn't turn on a single article. Or it shouldn't. There's an absurd amount of robust evidence for physical differences in male/female brains, and male/female behaviour. And neither can be explained by culture alone. There's entire wings of academia dedicated to the motivated denial of this fact. See Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for extensive details and documentation. It was written 20 years ago, but it's just as relevant to day as in the early 2000s. (I re-read it recently. Yes I have a PhD in a relevant field.)

This is science denial masquerading as science. Male and female brains are as physically different as male and female faces. Sure one feature by itself -- like the nose -- may show little significant different, but it's the differences together that count. Furthermore, brain structure doesn't say that much about brain function... (I can run windows and linux on the same or similar hardware)... and there's absolutely robust evidence that men and women differ in small and large ways on average. Finally, this Lawrence Summers affair is a perfect example of feelings over facts. Summers was making an academic argument which is still relevant today. The responses are perfect examples of motivated and political reasoning. See Chapter 1 of Susan Pinker's "The Sexual Paradox" for a detailed examination of this sad chapter of anti-intellectualism.

The woke are taking over the universities, and pushing out this nonsense as "fact". The fundamental consequence of bullsh*t like this, is that people will trust "science" less and less, as it's used to push politicized nonsense.

This trial is means-tested welfare, so it doesn't even qualify as UBI. But if it WERE UBI, people would have $$$ without a concomitant increase in productivity, and that will necessarily lead to the inflation of assets. Like rent increases lead to higher property values. In the end, after all is said and done, most of the increases will have been captured by Wall Street and the 1%. We're only as wealthy as what we produce collectively, and money is a dynamic informational element of the economy. Artificially re-routing money doesn't change that. If we want more income equality, we need to let people go bankrupt when they make bad choices. So no propping up the stock market. All those city councils and states, and pension funds that have bet on 7% year on year growth, have to go to the public and say they've been lying for decades. There's a reason why housing prices are so absrud, and the stock market is over-inflated, and it has to do with rich people making $$$ off of government policy. They've got a gun barrel to the head of the economy, and are daring someone to pull the trigger. The poor are held hostage. Nobody talks about the problem. UBI WILL MAKE IT WORSE.

It's not just taxes. Imagine how much rent will go up if everyone has $1000 extra per month. It's all "location, location, location". And then, if rent goes up, then how much will property values go up? UBI could only work in a fantastical place where the economic is this static rigid thing that it simply isn't.

Woke discourse is founded on equivocation fallacies.