>Someone at Amazon basically throught why does a human have to look at the statistics after a few months and replaced it with some code
I wonder too if its also someone who wanted to avoid the confrontation of having to make the decision. "We've noticed you've been under-performing and you haven't been meeting your quotas for the past x weeks" vs "The tracking system has determined that you have been under performing and so we have to let you go." It may seem close to the same, but its always easier to say it was someone else or something that decided instead of you.
> So people want the whole company to go bankrupt and for 50k people to lose their jobs and we have no one leading the charge towards electric vehicles?
Some people wanted that for the big 3 auto makers too when they were looking to be bailed out. I'd say very few people fall into that category, but I think more so people are fed up with being over sold on Tesla. Personally I'd be more concerned if there wasn't people being critical of these companies.
>Once again I gotta say the negativity is astounding.
How do you figure what they did should be something that is considered a positive? They are raising the price of the base car that was supposed to be for the masses. Now granted to a degree it was a bait and switch anyway given that most people interested in the car want the bells and whistles that they don't get on the base model anyway. Raising the base price to me seems to be something that should be considered a negative no matter the auto maker.
>astounded to see people constantly saying Autonomy is a decade+ away.
Because in all likelihood it is. What they've done in the last 6 years is impressive but wasn't impossible. Even if 95% of their miles can be done autonomously the other 5% is not to be snuffed at as being just as easy. I look at it as 80/20. They've done the 'easy' 80% of it, but the problem is now you're stuck with all the difficult next steps (ie one off situations, roads with no markers, construction, user driving mistakes, ect) as well as the potentials for legal liabilities if they go fully autonomous.
Its no different than calling for the removal of an open racist from a position of power. The main difference is that transphobia is still a gray area, while racism is more or less a settled debate.
Unless racism is rooted out and specifically shunned, it will continue to exist. That's the main lesson from the civil rights movement. Today's battleground is Transgender people and Homosexuality.
> Wouldn't that also disqualify those who who call for her removal or is that an acceptable type of bigotry?
Just from a utilitarian perspective: what are we gaining by allowing transphobia to propagate in society? In my eyes, transphobia offers nothing of benefit to our society, so we should shun it and clamp it down.
Just as racism doesn't offer anything good to our society, transphobia doesn't seem to offer any real benefits. So lets get rid of it.
You're talking two different things here and trying to equate it as one in the same.
I have no idea who this lady is other than what was posted in the article. I read the tweets posted above and I see it as being a big leap to being transphobic by definition. Her concerns/points are valid and that view is shared by a lot of women. Many take those concerns not because of someone who is transgender, but those would would/might abuse the equality hospitality for their own ill reasons.
The first tweet is about a law I haven't researched and don't understand. So I'm going to have to reserve judgement on it. The 2nd tweet however, seems to fall into the category of transphobia to me.
> If [The United Nations] can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically.
Please, explain to me how a Trans-woman would "erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically". And do your best to not be Transphobic in your response.
This is already an issue in that the author of the post refuses to call a Trans-woman a Trans-woman... but instead prefers to call them a man. So the Twitter post is already implicitly transphobic.
The scientific understanding of gender, transgender, and sex has greatly improved in just the last 30 years. Unfortunately, the old concepts of male and female are now outdated in the face of modern science.
These are the bodies that the creator have given us. Yes, I'm religious, and I do believe that we must accept the bodies and the facts-of-the-bodies that we were created with. By studying sexuality and gender, new medical understandings have come about. There is more than just Male (XY) and Female (XX), there's a spectrum in between due to medical mysteries (from chromosome mutations, like Klinefelter syndrome XXY chromosomes... to the "guevedoce" (Translation: Penis at 12) born-females who turn into males at the age of 12ish.
There's just a lot of weird medical stuff and mysteries that happen in this world.
Its hard to argue with how God created us. It seems like the best plan moving forward is to accept these ambiguous gendered people and study them... and accept them for how they are.
Still not seeing how her tweet(s) is transphobic. You might as well quote the whole tweet though if you're going to pull out part to show she said man vs trans-women since provides contexts as to why she used that term.
"Redefining of sex" was stated right before the use of man not gender. As I understood it sex does not equal gender given the new belief. If they are the same to my understanding there has been no link to sex chromosomes mutations and trans. Those mutations are at best 1.2% of the total population and vary in severity. Even that entire 1.2% probably doesn't fully represent the trans community.
I don't think she was making statement at all that transgender doesn't exists in nature. Her tweets read to have more to do with one many women see as a valid concern men transitioning (or just saying they are with no intent to truly do so) to being a women to take advantage of a situation that may cause harm to women identified at birth.
> Her tweets read to have more to do with one many women see as a valid concern men transitioning (or just saying they are with no intent to truly do so) to being a women to take advantage of a situation that may cause harm to women identified at birth.
Can you elaborate on how a transwoman can harm ciswomen? Because I'm personally not seeing any way to answer that question specifically without making some kind of trans-phobic assumption.
"Economically and Socially harm" is the one I'm most interested in. I can maybe see an argument for sports, but that's barely an economic or social issue IMO. The tweet says "Economic, Social, and Political" harm, which is quite a powerful statement!
> "Redefining of sex" was stated right before the use of man not gender
Honestly, I haven't kept up with the internet on this whole thing. I'm mostly working off of psychology that I've studied roughly 15 years ago in high school. So forgive me if I'm not fully remembering all medical details of transsexuals.
I too don't really understand the "sex vs gender" words. But I don't really care too much about those details.
> Those mutations are at best 1.2% of the total population and vary in severity. Even that entire 1.2% probably doesn't fully represent the trans community.
USA has 300,000,000 people. Even a 0.1% statistic becomes 300,000 people. If a small class of people are living an uncomfortable life, and all we have to do to make them feel better is call them "she" or "he" (or whatever they prefer... whether or not they have Adam's apples or whatever), I'm more or less willing to give that to them.
Its basically no cost to me, or anybody really. And it improves the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Now, it seems to me that you're trying to tell me that treating transpeople with respect has a social cost. What I'm trying to do is get you to tell me what that social cost is exactly, because I'm frankly not seeing it.
That seems like just as bad of an idea. In theory the bulbs (LED) are supposed to last at least 10 years. If you use a smart socket it will stick around a lot longer. Sounds better, but look at how things have changed in the past 10-20 years in wireless tech and security alone. Personally I see the "dumb" bulbs and sockets as the smart choice.
There is a difference to objections morally and attempting to have it completely shutdown in the company so no one else can help with what they feel is line with their values. Some believe in protecting and defending their values and freedoms and I'd say most of if not all of those people are anti-war. They know however that if it comes to that; they want their men and women to be better equipped and to hopefully come home safe.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If they are a position to harm the project and did due to their objections; then they would be out of a job. If they quit given their objections then the project would also be harmed and they would still be out of a job. The outcome would be the same of seeking new employment.
That's what backs up any employee's position in negotiating with the employer. If it goes down to the wire, either the employee must have a willingness to leave, or a group of employees must credibly believe that "they can't fire all of us".
No Agenda. I was looking for something different after starting to get burned out from Tech news stuff a few years back. I enjoy the deconstruction of media coverage and events that they do especially when its stuff that the media isn't covering because they are too busy with "Trump did/said today" sensationalism that has taken over the media as of late.
