negative stereotypes exist for both models (eg cocaine snorting anorexic bimbos) and computer nerds (antisocial smelly boring men who refuse to grow up while living in their mother's basement).
who cares? I get the points about the stereotypes in the article, which was pretty shallow. though there did exist the point that people don't always conform to stereotypes. models can be smart, nerds can be attractive.
despite the ranting I agree with you. I had my first kid while at university and immediately switched to a program where I could have a job and career, and graduate quickly. It wasn't my passion, but it provides for my family, and I don't winge about it to anyone else. I pursue my interests on the side as a hobby - which I hope to turn into a business or career if/when possible. It can be very hard to find the time for hobbies when you have a young family and a marriage to maintain. It's not about elites vs. non-elites though. Its about the fact that no-one has a right to be entitled to anything. You have to face the realities of life make sacrifices and be accountable for where you have ended up.
I would like to see this 'science', that's not voiced argumentatively, just would be of interest. However I posit that consciousness is more than an illusion. I won't type my spaghetti argument here but it is essentially the famous 'I think, therefore I am'. I would agree with you on the irrationality of religion and faith. I choose to be a 'believer' not on purely logical grounds but because of the other benefits it provides to me. Unlike you I feel that intrinsically my 'self' and other people's 'selves' are important and equal. My faith based beliefs provide a foundation for principles that support that conjecture. Essentially my beliefs are not based on the scientific method or on the physical properties of the universe. They are not however 'utterly devoid' of meaning, significance, or benefit.
btw, this s/b a reply to a previous comment as this doesn't answer the question posed.
I totally agree with wturner on the learning curve, as I'm also a 'noob'. I've taken up learning to code in the past year and it is very energy and time-consuming! I started with sites like CodeAcademy, but I've since turned to MIT OCW to give me a more thoughtful and full background in computing. And I want to know about a lot more than creating pages and formatting for the web.
i'm a total newbie at technology and programming. I'm an accountant, but in the last year I've developed a passion for computing and learning to code. I was never exposed to coding or making growing up, everything was a dark hole or a black box that just worked (most of the time). My answer to your question is that if you want to 'reach' or 'help' them your energy will mostly be wasted. You can't install curiosity, motivation, or a lust for knowledge in a person. They have to want it, there is already enough resources to keep anyone's head spinning. (at least there is for me)
Ha, made me smirk. I personally believe in creation. anyways I think it is easy to feel like there is some sort of 'cosmic' intervention beyond evolution, to help people feel a sense of purpose and place in our world and universe.
What do ATT, Google, Xerox, and the old HP have on common? - They wer innovative market leaders of there time. They invested further in monetizing their successful business models. ATT&T has managed to continue to be a big player in telecoms and Google, much younger than the others is still incredibly relevant. But being a monopoly does not encourage innovation, although it can provide the financing. being a monopoly instead incentives protectionist behaviour to maintain the status quo 'cash cow'. Eventually however, unless protected by government intervention, monopolies fall or shift to new entrants. The only way to combat that is to look to the future and try and ride the next wave. Google's support of investing in 'moonshots' is really necessary to ensure they stay relevant, otherwise at some point they will become irrelevant.
who cares? I get the points about the stereotypes in the article, which was pretty shallow. though there did exist the point that people don't always conform to stereotypes. models can be smart, nerds can be attractive.