Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Labor is your most important resource (Score 1) 69

it might be better to pay people based on the value they create in the world instead of whatever the market decides

- market is a collection of all people involved, who is better suited to decide on what the value is other than all of the people as a collective vote?

doctor who proscribes pumpkin seeds to cure cancer actually create negative value, yet they get paid quite a lot sometimes, so therefor the market is an ineffeciant way of deciding how much to pay people.

- they are removing the money from the gullible, which may be argued is a better way to redistribute the money (all done willingly even though misguidedly).

people who make a ton of money by owning things but do no work at all, such as heirs to large fortunes

- the market has already decided that the parents of heirs were productive enough, that even their heirs can now enjoy the fruits of the labor of the people who made the money.

Most americans at this point will piss themselves and run away from dangerous thoughts like these.

- dangerous by what measure?

Comment Re:Fixed that for ya (Score 1) 69

Or:

"Every HRIS software solution is a rats nest of shit and garbage, cemented together with used chewing gum and toxic industrial sealant that gives you headaches just for looking at it, running on top of archaic and deeply outdated vendor lock-in 'enterprise solutions.' Thus you need more humans to get done what needs doing. See: Oracle HMS, Workday, ADP, BambooHR, etc."

Comment Re:Data centers are bad for communities (Score 2) 37

Or, here's an idea: don't build large facilities that can't be powered up in geographical areas that can't provide the resources you need to operate the large facility.

What critical need is served by building these things in Santa Clara rather than somewhere with a bit more infrastructure to handle it, other than proximity to HQ?

Comment Re:With Science (Score 1) 87

Science? Really? There's a lot of soft-brained, unscientific and technophilic pseudo-religion in the article.

Let's work with the argument's load-bearing phrase, "exploration is an intrinsic part of the human spirit."

There are so many things to criticise in that single statement of bias. Suffice it to say there's a good case to be made that "provincial domesticity and tribalism are prevalent inherited traits in humans", without emotional appeals to a "spirit" not in evidence.

Comment Re:Remember kids (Score 0, Troll) 64

DEI is advertised by its proponents as "anti-racism". And as such, it's to racism as antimatter is to matter: weighs the same, behaves the same, looks the same, has some colors flipped, acts violently when in contact with its counterpart -- but as long as all of the flipped "colors" remain flipped, indistinguishable from it.

So here's a math exercise: assuming a normal distribution (which is incredibly "infectious" as long as the scores have multiple different causes), generate a population of scores for group A and for group B, with group B having the average lower by X points. Now select the best candidates, using any of the following strategies:
* quotas: reserve A/(A+B) spots for group A, B/(A+B) spots for group B
* Affirmative Action: give every candidate from B X extra points, pick from the global population
* meritocracy: pick from the global population based only on the scores, completely blind to race/gender/zodiac sign/odd-or-even date of birth/etc
* penalty for the "inferior" group: subtract X points from every candidate from B, pick globally
* traditional racism: pick from only group A
Now compare the total score of candidates you picked for every strategy.

It doesn't matter if groups A vs B differ by race, gender, etc -- the mechanism is the same.

Slashdot Top Deals

16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling

Working...