First time in a long while I've seen intelligent commentary about testes on the internet. I have to admit that it's well written, though the thought of a "bell curve of average testicular temperature" did make me giggle internally a bit. I suppose at some time a group of scientists had to have mapped that out, but I wonder what the sample diversity was.Google actually comes with up an an interesting article regarding the curve of temperature in rat scrotums (wider ranging than humans by quite a lot, but then rats are fairly large in that area) and the thermal receptors therein
'The page "Mircowaves" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.'
So I'm guessing you still meant microwaves, which - in the case of the oven - are emitting radiation sufficient to cook food within a rather short'ish period of time. I suppose there's not enough heat in a short time to cook ones testes but I'd rather not be standing there when the door opens.
Enough radiation to be measured on the outside equipment? While I'm sure the equipment is - by necessity - quite sensitive, that still doesn't sound particularly healthy for anyone in front of the microwave when it was opened.
The guy that works in the local corner store also has a non-zero probability of getting shot when he goes to work in the morning. Yes, it's terrible when bad things happen to cops, but it doesn't mean that we should ignore that a not insignificant number of bad things are committed by cops. Keep in mind that 1.4% is just reported incidents, and that there are probably plenty of "better keep quiet or you'll get a worse beating" situations out there.
I saw one mock-up where a phone-type screen was projected onto the wrist of the wearer. That might be a bit much, but perhaps something like this with a basic keyboard - projected onto the wrist/arm - might be doable.
Not sure how well it will work for us guys with hairy arms though.
If you can afford tuition of $28,750/yr for elementary school, then you don't need a charity to subsidize the cost for you. This is nothing more than the 1% helping the other 1%. The promise of trickle down is merely a teaser for the other 99%.
So there could be two groups, those who look to improve their skill, who quickly distance themselves from the group that doesn't. Of course, there will still be wide variance in skill between the members of each group. I'm sure you can think of other ways it could happen.
No, I can't. I started out and I sucked. I got better eventually through experience. In order for it to be truly bimodal, people have to start in either camp A or camp B and end in the same camp they started in. Because if you transition from one to another over time, any point in time will capture a group of people in between the modes. Now, you can argue that people don't spend much time in between those modes but you haven't presented any evidence for that. What's more likely is you have geocities coders on one tail and John Carmack/Linus Torvolds on the other tail. And in between are people like the presenter and I. And since I'm not instantaneously going from bad to good, the reality of the situation is most likely some degree of a normal curve filled with people trying to get better at programming or even just getting better though spending lots of time doing it and learning a little along the way.
For all your attacks on the presenter, your argument of a bi-modal distribution sounds more flawed to me. I would love to see your study and hear your argument.
According to Edge the tech industry is rife with sexism, racism, homophobia, and discrimination and although it is a multi-faceted problem, the talent myth is part of the problem.
Ageism (as usual) is not mentioned, though it is just as big a problem.
Link to Original Source
This guy doesn't know how to measure programming ability, but somehow manages to spend 3000 words writing about it.
To be fair, you can spend a great deal of time talking about something and make progress on the issue without solving it.
Another reason to waste a lot of time talking about a problem without reaching an answer is to elaborate on what the known unknowns are and speculate about the unknown unknowns. Indeed, the point of this article seemed to be to advertise the existence of unknown unknowns to "recruiters, venture capitalists, and others who are actually determining who gets brought into the community."
So he doesn't know......programmer ability might actually be a bi-modal distribution.
If he had collected data to support his hypothesis, then that would have been an interesting article.
But you just said there's no way to measure this
Because there is a pattern, and the pattern is that the peaceful "moderates" do not control and exclude the violent "extremists".
Condemning 1.6B Muslims, because they can't reign in a some violent Muslims seems a bit extreme. In the US, it is innocent until proven guilty. Go after the extremists, no problem, but leave the innocent alone.
Nobody said that Muslims should get special treatment, but then again, it sounds like that is what you are proposing. We don't single out all Christians because Timothy McVey was one or the Westboro Baptist Church are. So, why should we single out all Muslims because of the actions of a few? If if there were a million Muslims who were extremists, that is
As for other religious groups shooting or killing others because of religious mockery, one only has to go back a few decades to Ireland or Croatia to see exactly that. As for atheists doing so, one only has to look at China and the former Soviet Union.
Should we condemn all Chinese because of the actions of small percentage? No, of course not. So, why should we condemn all Muslims for the actions of a small percentage? It seems like doing so is the very different treatment you are complaining about.
There are something like 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Many in countries that that value free speech. Maybe what you meant to say was that terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qeda are incompatible with a society based on free speech. Of course that ignores the PM who wants to ban the Quran, so maybe society is not really based on free speech but acceptable speech, instead. Of course, then who is to decide what is acceptable or not?
However, it is no more accurate to use ISIS as the definition of Islam than it is to use Quakers as the definition of Christianity.
As for poking them to show who loves freedom and who does not, that sounds more like bullying versus exercising freedom.
Or shooting abortion doct... or wait.