Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Not exactly take, but augment (Score 1) 320

It's not about what's likely. It's about not lying about what's happening.

Is a deferred hire, because of increased efficiency, when nobody was fired or laid off, a "replaced person"?

No human uses those words that way, unless they are pushing an agenda. A replaced person is a human who was hired to do a job, then was fired. Theoretical job losses through shrinkage shouldn't count.

Comment Re:Also mine vs. others (Score 1) 320

Nope. Young workers being more efficient from tools allows the business to hire fewer and do more business. This doesn't "fire" anyone, and the reduction is in the number of workers per unit work. Not in active firings of people due to automation. That still only happens in manual labor, factories and mining. Though in mining, the number of workers isn't greatly reduced, but moved to safer top-side jobs.

The fear of job loss is not borne out by layoff numbers. It simply isn't happening.

Comment Re:Well yeah (Score 1) 320

Did you ever read Animal Farm? The douchebag that took advantage of the system was one of the least "evil" characters. And, had surprisingly little dependence on the government. Odd how so many who hate socialism can't grasp that basic idea, put forth 50+ years ago, and shown basically correct ever since.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 1) 904

Why would you equate 'I cannot assert it exists' with 'I can definitely assert it does not exist'. Do you not understand that these are different?

I do. You obviously don't. Your words are supporting a default position of disbelief. That is asserting it does not exist, not asserting you don't have an opinion on the matter.

As to why we should disbelieve, it's simple.

Ah, so in the absence of evidence, you assert it does not exist, in direct contradiction to your earlier lies.

The source of the news is untrustworthy,

So you disbelieve Uber's position that she's not full of lies? Why do you think Uber is so full of lies?

It's not just on the source, but the actions of others. She made quite factual assertions about specific facts. If she's lying, she'll be sued to oblivion. If she's not, she (and Uber) will have documents to support claims. She made a complaint to HR on her first day. You think that's a lie. You are positively definitely asserting it does not exist. The "scientific" response is, a single observation of a single event doesn't make a rule. The generalization of her complaint to all startups is invalid. The generalizatoin of her complaint to all women or men within Uber would be invalid.

But simply disbelieving her because you find complaints of sexism to be inconvenient is scientifically invalid.

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't lie about science to justify it.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 1) 904

I have not observed Saturn, yet I refrain from pointing out it's lack of existence to anyone that claims it exists.

Evidence has been provided of specific incidents, no contrary evidence has been provided. So why is your default position to be to disbelieve all the provided evidence, and apparently heavily weight the non-provided exculpatory evidence?

That stance is not based in science.

Comment Re:Prove it! (Score 5, Insightful) 904

She made s specific claim with regards to the *fact* she was harassed on her first day, and it was reported to HR her first day. If that fact-based claim is a lie, Uber should sue her. That they aren't, and haven't responded, is evidence that they don't object to her facts. Yes, silence is an admission of guilt (except in court). In fact, Uber has made confirming statements, where they are concerned. And they have explicitly not questioned the factual claims made.

And complaints bout SJWs seem to exceed the number of SJWs. Try facts, rather than yous snowflake tantrums.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 1) 904

A guy working in a company with almost all guys will likely not see the worst of the worst. That a male hasn't been sexually harassed doesn't mean that the environment isn't sexist.

I've witnessed worse behavior. Direct insults by the management to anyone who talked to the "cute girl" with unofficial "she's mine" overtones. Like shouting and threats of firing for talking to her. I manged to find this out when she ended up at the water cooler at the same time as me, and I casually asked her about her day. The manager walked past and insulted my genitalia loud enough for everyone in the building to hear, with the intention of making it clear that nobody talks to her but him. She later quit, because working there was miserable when the only person "allowed" to talk to her was an abusive jerk.

Though, I quit before her, because the environment was so toxic. No gossip needed, I was sexually harassed by the management with many witnesses.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus