deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

Inflation is a problem right now. A huge problem. The recession is actually the result of the government pulling back. It is a necessary action.

Interest rates will increase spending will be pulled back to stop inflation. A recession is the tool being used to stop inflation.

The CEO did not ask for money. The money was already given. The CEO was simply stating the status quo. Helping her come to terms realistically with what is truly going on with the Arizona plant. Look it up.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

The subsidies make the plant break even. Defense spending is basically another subsidy. Most of the weapons the US makes is useless in a civilization that has mostly been at peace for a long time. Hard to say how far defense will go though in terms of spending.

You are definitive about defense spending in a recession. This is wrong. Aspects of the government will begin pulling back. We do not know how this will effect tsmc.

This move from a profitablity standpoint is break even as far as we know. It makes no economic sense.

Btw. This isn't something I'm making up. The CEO of tsmc mark liu stated this to Nancy pelosi during her visit. Also her husband is dumping tsmc stocks for unknown reasons.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

It's possible. With subsidies. The US is literally paying tsmc for this to even be viable.

Tsmc is not coming here because it's an economically wise move. They are coming here knowing it's an economically irrational move.

Politics is the reason for this move. It is not a clear cut win.

Your post has the aroma of patriotism. Patriotism blinds us to harsh truths. Why do you love how people were wrong when they said we can't make chips in the US anymore? You shouldn't feel love or hate for any of these statements.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

Tsmc is being subsidized. The plant is not a profitable operation by itself. America is not back.

Patriotism is blindness. If you hold no loyalties to even the country you are born in it's easier to see the truth.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

Knowing category theory helps you better design interfaces. Exactly like the interfaces in OOP.

Alot of the generic interfaces you design in OOP end up being useless. Never re-used and pointless. You never needed to make these interfaces in the first place

In category theory, you will be able to create and identify interfaces that are universal, general and widely used throughout your code. Category theory allows you to organize your code efficiently via interfaces and thus enable Maximum reuse of logic.

When creating an interface you largely use your gut. Category theory allows you to draw from established interfaces that are more fundamental. Basically class types in haskell.

If you want to see the benefit of category theory, you really need to use haskell. Monads for example are a pattern from category theory.

Also a lot of what people are talking about in this thread is exactly what I'm saying^^. I'm just saying it in less complicated jargon.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

men never needed this. The things you describe are luxuries that a man can do without. Men would like to have this but this is not something needed.

In the past women, NEEDED men to survive. For women it was a choice about survival. It was always men who went out to hunt for food, farm for food, make the money and build the house. All the technology, all the machinery, all the science you see around you today, most of it was built, designed and envisioned by men.

In general human civilization and societies functioned in a way where men and women worked together but make no doubt about it. For the majority of human history (99%) men did built and maintained the infrastructure for survival. Men worked in partnership with women for betterment and higher productivity; women however worked with men because they needed to survive. A woman without a man in the past had few options to support herself.

This is no longer the case, so we'll see how it plays out, but modern society is at odds with the biology millions of years of evolution has designed us for. Likely there will be a culling. A natural selection process where a huge portion of the genetic pool will fail to reproduce.

To be frank I think a lot of men will just end up being lonely and single until they're dead. Polygamy will become more and more normalized and women will have a lot more power over society and societal norms in general.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/whpxuw/datin... This study had an unrelated purpose but nevertheless extracted the same data.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/the-m...

Everything I'm saying is common knowledge if you are an average (key word) man on dating apps OR if you're well versed in academic anthropology or evolutionary psychology (NOT gender studies). As an average male, we live this life anecdotally. The imbalance of power in the dating market invades every facet of what we feel and see. It is part of our logical reality. If you are not an average single man, it is very likely this reality is completely foreign to you; and when presented with this new angle you will likely not accept it.

Our culture paints a picture of inequality. The equation speaks to one side of of the story. The story of female empowerment; The rise of of the underdog. The other side of the equation, the male side, is invisible, especially if you are not a male.

The evidence extends beyond dating app statistics (which all categorically point to the same conclusion) to biology and anthropology:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dn... The genetic diversity of female genes is greater than male genes.

https://slate.com/technology/2012/10/are-humans-monogamous-o... In anthropology Monogamy is considered to be a mating strategy that guarantee a single mate for all men. It is advantageous to men and in many societies it is artificially enforced. Polygamy is more advantageous to females and the likely natural outcome when females are more empowered in society. It guarantees the best mate for females.

Of course women would prefer to be in a monogamous relationship with an alpha male. But given the choice between monogamy with a beta male or polygamy with an alpha they choose the later.

More on that here: https://www.vice.com/en/article/a38dwj/monogamy-may-be-even-...

Given anthropological studies of human culture and genetic studies of female genetic diversity, the conclusion is inescapable:

Hookup culture is the natural outcome of human behavior. Dating apps only magnify this behavior and allow us to collect data on it.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

>You might be surprised, but even if not, using the "less privileged" card from a position of someone in power enforcing illegal and unethical mandates on potential and existing employees is not the best application for it.

It's not a card. I don't even care to reveal it. I revealed it ONLY because someone decided to use identity politics against me for no goddamn reason.

And here you are turning it around again. Let's just stop with this vile nonsense.

>No, the problem with doing something illegal (that you can't explicitly put in the job description even) AND douchey is that it's illegal and douchey.

Do not fucking insult me. Calling me douchey is fucking rude and against the rules here. Either speak to me respectfully or don't speak here at all.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

Hook up culture is made up of lots of woman and a few men.

The women are desperately searching for a relationship. The few men involved with hook up culture have too many options are unwilling to commit due to overwhelming supply.

There are two reasons for why it's like this. The first reason is dating apps. Dating apps make it very easy for women to be even more selective then they already are.

The second reason is technology. The rise of technology including tampons and birth control has allowed women to fight for additional rights and come onto equal standing with men. For most of human history women depended on men for financial well being and survival in general. This is no longer the case.

Thus when being in a LT relationship isn't a survival requirement, women upgrade their selectivity.

The experience for the majority of men really just ends up being a lack of matches. The experience for women is a lack of men willing to commit. And for a few men (you most likely) hooking up is just "comfortable."

I'm not making this up. There is very real data about this.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

You are conflating it with sexual harassment and racism. That is OFF TOPIC.

It is very reasonable to put forth in the requirement:

    We are looking for a candidate who can get along with the team. The team likes to party and drink and they all tend to be very young. They do a lot of extracurricular activities together after work. Please only apply if you feel you can fit in well.

Are you telling me it's fair to pretend you're all of the above qualities and take the job? Then when the manager tries to fire you for misrepresenting yourself you use the law to protect yourself and make the entire team miserable by staying on the team even though you stick out like a sore thumb?

No, it's not. The above job description is honest and fair game. Let's not take this into other tangents that have to do with racism or sexual harassment. Be reasonable.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

>We might be getting a little esoteric here. If "Teams" is a concept then just from that name alone you can determine that it refers to an idea ( artificial construct ). And biology does not automatically wills teams into existence ( although it might happen to result in them as our environment seems to indicate ). Do you mean evolution?

No, team is a name for a concept that exist outside of just an idea. Animals display team like behavior in things we term as "herds" or "flocks". Team is simply a name for cooperation or group behavior.

It is a biological concept for two reasons. First it exists in animals. Animals tend not to have culture or learned behavior. Most animals form social groups (aka teams) naturally with minimal culture indicating that a "team" is not an idea but that it is hard wired behavior within their brains.

The second reason is that humans are heavily influenced by cultures and ideas. A huge portion of our behavior across continents and peoples is divergent and different indicating that the behavior is "learned" or "created" out of ideas. The thing with teams is that it is a quality that is universal across cultures and peoples. There is no divergence. There is no culture that doesn't understand the concept of cooperation or teams. This makes it highly highly likely that the concept of a "team" is biological. It is behavior hardwired into our brain in the same way that pain or hunger is hardwired into our brains. All humans form teams, all humans get hungry.

The one difference here is that hunger forms a somewhat distinct sensation separate from consciousness in our brains so we can easily tell that "hunger" is distinct. Team building and forming is however woven directly into our consciousness so it's harder to see the separation between "learned" and "inborn". The outside evidence, however, points to biology as the origin. All cultures form teams and cooperate. All cultures get hungry.

>So it is a requirement?

No it's not a requirement.

>I think that is a really bad argument. Slavery still exists ( sadly ) and I would not even dream of thinking considering recommending it.

For THAT specific comment I am saying that team bonding activities exist for a reason. A purpose. That is VALID supporting evidence for my point.

You are conflating that point with Morality which is completely separate. For example there's plenty of examples of wars and conflicts between people who didn't bond well. People have died because of failure of team bonding. Therefore team bonding should be a requirement. Is that valid? No. The truth is much more complex.

That being said Team bonding has it's place. There is reasoning for why it exists and conflating it with slavery is really taking it too far. We both know the importance of team bonding. If you're not bonding with your team at work, then you're focusing your time on a different team outside of work. You value team bonding. Likely it is your family. Should I conflate this with slavery? Is that a reasonable tangent? No.

>Yep, and now we evolved into something better. Could we move onto Team 2.0 so to speak?

I would say we didn't. We have no idea whether it's team 2.0 or a regression. You have no evidence for this either way. I would say that the current configuration of "professional teams" just fits your current work style and life. It works for you, so you like to think it's "team 2.0" when really we need data to know either way.

>I guess it depends. Some traditions are more upsetting than others. Would you advocate for a team that wants to continue a tradition of child sacrifice?

This is taking it too far. Let me reword this in a way that makes more sense and still conveys your point without being ludicrous. The restaurant Hooters exclusively hires employees based off the tradition of breast size and lacking a penis. Do I advocate that?

Yes I do. Each team has different requirements, short of child sacrifice I think a requirement like being similar to the team and enjoying team bonding activities is NOT unreasonable.

IMO that is a valid metric to hire someone.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

>To be frank, your position is beyond the pale.

No, I think you're misinterpreting. Let me elucidate my position in more detail.

It is fair game for the employer to be upfront about all of this stuff BEFORE the employee is hired. It needs to be in the job description. The employer wants someone who can bond and party with the team, and it is within his right to look for such a person.

It is not right for the employer to find a person who is not this person then force him to conform.

That is my stance. Looking for employees who like to drink, party and socialize with the entire team is fair game.

Obviously the man in the article was hired because the employers THOUGHT he was that person. The fact that he wasn't was miscommunication likely from both parties. Regardless of the law he doesn't fit in with the team at all. Getting fired is bound to happen.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

> Culture is fine in the office, but enforcing outside activities is inappropriate.

Let me put it this way. If the job description expects it to be out of office and YOU chose to work for THAT job, then it's fair game to fire you should you choose not to live up to the spirit of the description.

But it shouldn't be forced upon you if it's not part of the job description.

Overall though I don't think it's much of a problem. Most companies are, like you said, they leave the participation to be optional and everyone is cool with it.

deltaseventhree

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

>But making it an expectation for a job that has nothing to do with alcohol? Yeah no.

Why not? I want my employee to fit in with the team. If they drink then I want someone who drinks. This is reasonable. There are subtle performance effects on the ENTIRE team when hiring someone too divergent.

As an employer I want my employees to all be friends. If I make this request in the job description I think that's perfectly fair. If I spring this request unknowingly onto someone who just got hired then it's unfair.