Sure that's all well and good, but at the end of the day most of us are going to do business with whoever delivers fastest and at the lowest cost. If we didn't there'd be no incentive to deliver better service.
But does this practice actually produce the best results overall, or does it create a constant churn of lower skill employees as the original bottom 6% might have been acceptable doing their jobs, but have long since been replaced by people who will possibly also be replaced? Does this stress of being in the bottom 20% force other adequate workers to find employment elsewhere, causing those lower on the rungs to move up, in a perverse peter-principle parallel? To say nothing of training a new crop of 6% of office workers every year. Sure, (electronic) paper pushing isn't nuclear physics, but it's not warehouse work either.
My bet is that upper management was sold this idea by HR, and HR thinks it's a good idea because it means HR must remain a larger percentage of the company.
Only 40-55% [wikipedia.org] of people diagnosed with autism are classed as "low-functioning"
Compare that with the percentage of non-autistic people who are classified as "low-functioning" (and no, the apocryphal 50% below/above isn't real)
Autism has bad effects. To deny this is folly.
Pool's entirely reasonable characterisation of the Time article.
Was this the article that describes a well funded and organized "cabal" (the word from the article) of elite democrats from disparate fields to "fortify" the election to achieve "the proper result" since, at the time, Trump was holding steady in the polls?
the reason of "no commits, so it must not be in use!" is not sound
I think the argument is more "no commits, so it must not be actively maintained!"
Which might also not be accurate. No commits might mean that it's darn near perfect if the hardware hasn't changed (and we're talking about older hardware).
Remember. Half the people are below average.
I'm assuming you're referencing the Carlin quote, "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that"
Remember that he's a comedian.
Now consider the IQ bell curve and what it means. Even if you assume that Average is the exact point on the graph where IQ=100, then there are a lot of people on that line, which means that less than half of the total people are in the less than 100 IQ range. If you take the view that average intelligence is a range of IQs, let's say 90-110, then that's a huge portion of the population (area under the curve for that range), further reducing the number of lower-IQ people. Carlin's joke relies on its own ridiculous premise to provide the humor. It should not be used as basis for argument.
IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.