Architects. Pfft.* Can modern architects stop inflicting ugly buildings on us, even if they didn't kill people? No one cares about your "theories". They look shit and often function shit. * Whoops, blew down my apartment building.

So you still want to argue that Apple's stated desire to focus on addressing the balance is directly responsible for what happened to you? Okay. Go RIGHT AHEAD.

No, you miss the inherent need for prioritization in any allocation of limited resource. Putting someone ahead of others based on need is not discrimination. Otherwise, you may as well argue that nice values in POSIX operating systems are discrimination.

Further more, a CHILD deserves more help than an adult male of any colour. If you got beaten out by a child, THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO HAVE HAPPENED. Your attempt to use a loaded example clearly shows you are the one who has a discrimination agenda from the outset but are trying to disguise it as "rationality". If you think you should win out over a CHILD, then you have something seriously wrong with you.

You STILL didn't address the very likely possibility that they have too many applications to process and so they focus on the most needy groups. The fact that NOW you reveal whatever organization you applied for helps FELONS over normal people shows that would be the case. . You STILL haven't actually considered if female/minority/felon haven't also been turned away. You seem to think every white male who applied have been rejected and every female/minority/felon applicant were accepted.

I didn't wave away your experiences. I'm saying your experience is not representative and possibly also interpreted too narrowly. Your whole response continues to show vary blatant cognitive biases thinking it's all out to get you.

AND you still have absolutely no proof that Apple's focus affects you in any way. Apple decides to address things it sees as an issue, you don't even know HOW they'll address it, and you already condemn it. There's more than one way Apple can address that issue, but you continue refuse to contemplate what those could be.

And so you interpret that as policies being targeted against you? What about the very real possibility that there are a lot of applicants, and that maybe even some female or minority applicants were also disqualified?

Black people often don't get considered even for just an interview if they used their "black sounding" name on a CV and there's a "white sounding" name in the list. This happens. You don't witness because you're a white male.

So you have a hunch.

Maybe that's what you see, but doesn't mean that's what it is. From the account you gave above, it doesn't sound like you've seriously considered why things happened to you the way it did, and you jumped right to the conclusion it was discrimination against white men in general.

I can easily justify it: because it isn't happening. Apple saying they want to look into the problem of addressing the balance issue in no way has any effect that travels back in time and target white males such as yourself. Then you base what you think would be their approach based on a hunch. Your account only shows you have a very egocentric view of what happened to you and then jumping to a conclusion.

People like you still haven't actually proven you are being discriminated AGAINST by what Tim Cook is pushing for. You have still yet to point to any policy espoused by Tim Cook that says anything about reducing the number of white male workers either already working, or being hired. There are many ways to address the balance without discrimination. Looking out for more minority people for consideration does not negatively affect you. You'll still get hired and get educated.

The past IS the past. But things are STILL happening in the present. Stop pretending discrimination against minorities don't exist today.

An insult is not an ad hominem. I insult you because you made two stupid replies to my comments back to back and they rubbed me up the wrong way, so those insults have nothing to do with the worth of your argument. It's an observation, not an opinion.

What does that even mean? Those who "get it" are by definition the "top people". How can anyone meaningfully be said to "get it" if they were not the top people? Maybe you're confusing "top people" with "top marks", which I never said. If you want to talk formal logical fallacies, yours is a strawman.

AND what's more ridiculous is you are STILL maintaining that the people who get it are the same in every class. Really? Are all the people who "get it" in maths class the exact same set of people who "get it" in a music class? Name me one world class musician of any instrument/composition style who is also "gets it" with advanced maths. And vice versa. That simple example alone disproves your badly argued assertion.

I'm beginning to see your experience is as an educator is as a bad one if you even refuse to see basic empirical facts.

Wow, that is very stupid even from you. You do know that the top physicists aren't necessarily the top mathematicians and the top mathematicians certainly aren't the top physicists, right? You were the one who brought up the "student" example. Clearly, you've never been to any sort of educational institution if you could say with no hint irony that the it's always the same group that gets it REGARDLESS OF SUBJECT. Or perhaps you define "subject" so narrow as to discount actual subjects taught in actual schools/universities.

Thinking logically is now "mental masturbation" is it? My Slashdot has sunk to new depths.

But that same group of students will have a different set of better performing people in another subject. The point being is human intellect at the high end is very specialized. Artificial intelligence shouldn't be discounted purely because it is even more specialized than a human expert of a field.

So are we measuring intelligence by potential intelligence or actual intelligence now? Because if so, computers have a lot more potential to learn how to do ALL those things and much more efficiently than humans. And maybe learning how to write a symphony changes your brain in such a way as to not be able to play chess at a high level, as an example? I'm not saying it does, but the brain "software" is a bunch of physical neural connections, whereas software for a machine are bits and/or pulses which do not have the learning limitations of physical neural connections.

No, not by "my decision". You are completely terrible at examples. A better example is "artificial sweetener is not sugar", and it isn't. An artificial leg is an artificial leg and not a leg. Try again.

And where exactly is this imaginary reverse discrimination about Tim Cook's statement? Did he say "we're no longer going to hire white males" as the main or only way he's going to try to balance things out? Your pre-emptive attempt to play the victim is precisely the response I was talking about.

How does this affect anyone here who is commenting negatively about this? Why are people taking it as a personal attack on their personal politics?

Most of the ad hoc requirements that people define intelligence by isn't met by most of humanity. Most people haven't written a symphony. Most people can't go beyond basic algebra. Most people cannot play chess. The people who can do all of those things probably can be counted on two hands, if not just the one.

The "database and statistics engine" aren't separate things in Watson. It uses statistical reasoning on unstructured data to evaluate hypotheses. The statistical reasoning is also a part of that data.

I'd argue it is artificial intelligence. It's not intelligent. That's why we call it artificial. And its ability to change its own reasoning abilities with more data I'd argue is more intelligent than more than half the people on the planet.