About 7 years ago I switched to nursing from nearly 35 years as a software engineer. Each 13-hour shift my 6 or 7 patients, if there was a moment to talk, would ask why I did so. I'd make pretty much the same joke every time: "I was looking a job that was much much harder and paid much much less, so I landed on nursing. Unlike in a hospital, when I was in software and there was a crisis, we'd schedule a meeting and order burritos." The jokes stopped being funny, so three weeks ago I quit my last hospital nursing job.
When the “similar” setting is even a little bigger than the minority setting, it is hard to achieve satisfiaction. For example, if the minority color is at 10% but satisfaction requires 15%, then you can’t find satisfaction. This tool shows that the absolute fastest way to be satisfied is to not care about the color of your neighbor. IE, the way to societal happiness is to be color blind.
Do you have a source for this claim? There are plenty of mental health disorders (in the DSM-V) that are tied to one gender or another. Whether these are grounded in some physiological basis or serve to re-affirm social expectations is a whole other story.
I think you're probably right but on your link there I see a review article (from the US) criticizing the lack of diversity in studies. It is followed by papers from countries like Uzbekistan, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Austria, Korea. A few from Italy. The US certainly seems under-represented.
It doesn't need to be from the research experience. Research is not a straight line from A to B. One has to form wrong hypotheses, discard them completely, improve upon them, etc. Some paths are from A are MORALLY forbidden from pursuing.
If you’re asking yourself “why does an insulator speed conduction?” Then it’s worth reading the “function” section of the Wikipedia article on myelin, for an introduction on the role of these short, interrupted sections of insulator and why it makes conduction faster. Nerves don’t conduct electric signals like wires so (much slower, for one thing) making it hard for us to keep up with the processing of computers.
I made a beautiful app called ShoutFireInACrowdedTheater. With one tap it would shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Great interface. Amazing graphics. Voice activated. ADA compliant. But Google and Apple both banned it. Cancel Culture is real!
I don't see the contradiction or confusion implied by "funny". You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded building when there is no fire. This is why it is a classic example of reasonable limitations to free speech.
After Holmes' opinions in the Schenck trilogy, the law of the United States was this: you could be convicted and sentenced to prison under the Espionage Act if you criticized the war, or conscription, in a way that "obstructed" conscription, which might mean as little as convincing people to write and march and petition against it. This is the context of the "fire in a theater" quote that people so love to brandish to justify censorship. [0]
Every time this stupid meme reemerges, it serves only to identify people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Sorry, what's the proposed limitation? It's presumably not a rule against saying "fire" at all, since that what fire alarms are for.
I presume you mean that the limitations on speech take the form of punishments after the fact for saying "fire" when there wasn't one. I agree this is sensible.
But I think it's an important point that we can't (and shouldn't, and don't) ban people entirely from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, because if they're right, it's important to know.
I think it's worth discussing this more fleshed-out example, because it shows that in order to limit speech without shutting down useful information, you need to have some sort of trusted fact-finding apparatus to punish false alarms, which then become an important locus of power.
I am not big fan of the series so I would not know what is the current situation(maybe now they also do annoying ads? I wouldn't know), but essentially if you want to play all day long you need to chip in, otherwise you wait for life refills. There are also pay-to-win options(consumable power ups) but you don't have to use it. It is a delight for the people who are into the genre, my mother plays the game since years and she is loving it.
What I liked was that, the deal is sipmle: We will give you a game that you like but if you want to play it a lot or be given an easy time you will have to pay. This is in contrast of all the ad-based software out there where the deal is "We made something that you want however we would like you to consider doing something else by clicking on our ads, we insist".
I myself play a lot of PUBG Mobile and it's also an excellent experience. It's free to play, ads's don't interrupt and I can play as much as I would like but If I like to customise my characters appearance, then I need to pay.
another ~140 were armed with "toy weapons", such as the infamous shooting of Tamir Rice. But it's unclear whether that should go into the category of "unarmed" since this is still a threat perceived by police. Here is an image of Rice's toy gun: https://www.cleveland.com/resizer/CbjnPy-8-HkfIl1ApQ431f_Dlh...
Weirdly, hundreds of people were wandering around state capitols with much more dangerous looking weapons, and no cop shot them on site. It's almost like going by "perceived threat" (as determined after the fact by cops) is a giant hole that allows racial bias free reign.
In Rice's case, police were responding to reports of shots fired in the vicinity. By comparison, the protestors in Michigan (presumably this is what you were referring to) were attending a planned protest in a state with legal open carry.
While it's fair to say that bias was a factor in Rice's shooting, and I'd agree, pointing to open carry protests as evidence of this may not be the most effective line of argument. Especially since armed Black demonstrators carried out their own demonstrations not long afterward: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/michigan-law...
They were not responding to "reports of shots fired."
Police were responding to:
> "There's a guy in here with a pistol," the man tells a police dispatcher during the call. "It's probably fake, but he's like, pointing it at everybody."
referring to legal open carry, California changed the gun laws after the Back Panthers did the same back in the 60s.
The problem with systematic racism is the "percieved threat" part. When I have that racisit bias, I obviously will percieve a black person more as a threat than a white one. I may not even be aware of it, and facing ones own biases is a hard thing even more so for such serious things as racism and police brutality. When this bias is combined with the kind of training US police is getting, it a given to end up where the US ended up.
The only nice thing is, it also shows where to sart to remedy theissues. Once the police and the poluation accepted to see the issues.
Racial bias is absolutely disgusting. Nothing about the color of a person's skin or their family lineage could ever give indication of the actions they're likely to take. Culture on the other hand, which by definition includes behavior, can be a pretty good indicator. Either way, the room for error grows as the time taken to make a judgement decreases and unfortunately in the situations police find themselves in they have very little time for consideration.
Why should they shift that risk onto the public? Why are they lauded as heroes when they err on the side of killing innocents? Why shouldn't they be the ones to die instead of the people they've miscategorized as threats? Why are their lives worth more?
Seems like one option would be to discard the notion that we should attempt to categorize someone’s ‘culture’ without speaking to them, especially if you are assessing whether or not to use violence against them.
