biasedbrain

Unfortunately, [3] mentions the 97% consensus nonsense, making the rest of it less credible as well.

Still, nothing life threatening has happened so far, all the doomsday things are projections of the future.

There is a huge difference between "humans affect the climate" and "we are all going to die within a couple of years because of human's effects on the climate".

No, headlines like that is how "believers" argue. Just cut out the hyperbole and present reasonable, verifiable arguments, not appeals to authority.

And you think it is important that it should have been clicked and read? Why?

Announcing the paper with such hyperbole makes me less likely to want to read it. It just makes it very unlikely to live up to the hype.

I wonder if you have read the paper, btw?

One group of scientists, who can't imagine that their self invented model could be wrong, can't imagine any other reasons than man made changes for the results of their model simulation.

How you get from that to "removes almost all doubt" is beyond me. Such hyperbole does more damage than good.

I don't know anything about those scientists, I don't know anything about their model and their assumptions, so I am sorry, but for me it doesn't remove "almost all doubt".

There seem to be companies that embrace WFH, so if I was in that situation, I would strive to become employed at such a company.

I have nothing against work just being work, but I think there are different types of companies for a reason. If you want work to just be work, you can choose a company that treats work just as work and doesn't expect you to become one big family.

Like if you give the example of young people and old people - fair enough, then maybe young people are better of looking for jobs where they work together with other young people, and people in their 50ies are better off in jobs with other old people.

Ultimately companies are not created for the benefit of employees, but to create stuff. They try to be good to employees to be able to attract and keep talented staff.

If they learned that they have awful coworkers, they can quit again.

I just don't get the sense of entitlement many people seem to have.

Didn't they choose their jobs, and with that, their co-workers?

I'd like to see them argue "I don't want to come to the office because I don't like to be surrounded by people like you" as well. Is that a common argument?

I think people who are unhappy with their working conditions should just look for another job. It's fine to try to convince bosses that changes would be beneficial, but I don't have much sympathy for all the whining.

Still, it is mostly a cosmetic problem, while we are supposed to believe that global warming will kill us all in a short amount of time. So the priorities should be clear.

No it doesn't. The interest on the mortgage can be as low as 0.5%, so even if you pay in cash, you would only be at 1,5% yields (with my generous example of achieving 1% yields via the rent).

The "appreciation" is not a given and not risk free at all. Certainly not 9% per year - for how many years do you think that would continue?

Where can you get 9% yield on housing? Where I live, you can only buy houses at prices that are above what you can get back in rents. You are very lucky if you can get to 1% yields, which is below inflation and not technically a good investment. The only way it still makes "sense" is by speculating on rising prices for real estate. Which is not risk free at all.

He is rich because he provides you with stuff you want and are willing to pay for. Nobody forces you to buy from Amazon.

It is not your money anymore if you gave it to him in exchange for his services.

The headline says there was a swatting, though.

"then there's this overall trend of stagnating wages for everyone except owners of capital."

So people should better buy some capital!

Also the lament about stagnating wages glosses over the amount of people that have been added to the workforce. The average wage per person may have stagnated, but the sum of wages that are being paid out has increased a lot.

I think it is not a small achievement to provide jobs for so many more people.

I don't get what is so depressing from the article? Because the rich can afford it, and the poor can't? How do they imagine it should work instead?

The ideology is that differences in behavior are merely the result of oppression (via social norms) by the mythical patriarchy (which apparently isn't perpetrated by men, according to you, so who is it?). Not that behavioral differences have a biological foundation.

However, there is no point in arguing. I don't know what kind of feminist literature you encounter. Maybe you just choose to read it with pink tinted glasses, or you only see the moderate ones. You get to choose your own view of the world, of course.

"I feel safe in the assumption that it is “men unfairly push to women while they go off to have fun at work” in precisely zero of them."

But you don't actually know the reasons?

"yes, the article we’re already discussing in this thread."

Is that a feminist article? What makes it so?

"Academics consider these concerns to be the effect of deeply ingrained and highly damaging stereotypes around gender"

As expected, they don't dare to mention the real reasons (female privilege). It is not "just" societal constructs, it is the negotiation position of the wombs.

Um, no - women in the west have free choice of careers. Women in Saudi Arabia don't have free choice.

Was your comment serious? Do you truly believe women in the west are so oppressed that they can't freely choose their careers?

So what is the feminist theory why men don't share equally? So feminists believe women should give away some of their privilege of time with their children, for the benefit of men?

Or do they believe going off to work and "have a career" (never mind the aforementioned supermarket cashiers) is the better part, that men unfairly claim for themselves?

I have never seen feminists to call on mothers to give fathers more time with children, to tbh.

It is not about men being able to take care of children. Nobody sane doubts that.

Really? Then why do governments feel they have to force men to take time off?

Men in the relationship are typically seen as the "arm" of the patriarchy.

It is true that in this case it would benefit men if they were granted more time with their children (at the expense of the mothers and the family finances). But that is more accidental.

Show me a "proper feminist" article arguing for the benefit of men, rather against the exploitation of women, with regard to that subject, if you believe you know feminism so much better.

I didn't have the same experience. I took a lot of time off and think/hope I bonded just fine. I feel I was privileged to be ale to afford it, or rather, I just decided to afford it to dismay of my wife. That is another underrated factor: mothers actually WANT security, including financial security. Another factor is that it can get annoying if the other parent injects their opinions on rising children. It is not as if mothers in general are keen for the fathers to be around all the time. The feminist narrative (as usual) is absurdly wrong.

Breastfeeding is another example of why it is more "natural" for mothers to stay home than fathers, though.

I suppose the article doesn't mention the real reason: that it is the privilege of mothers to spend time with their children, because they invested and risked more to have them (or simply because having the womb gives them the better negotiation position).

While a small percentage of mothers can not relate well to their kids and prefer to get back to work asap, the reality is that most mothers prefer to spend time with their kids.

Who should get to spend time with the kids? The person who spent 10 seconds injecting their semen into the womb, or the person who toiled for 9 months letting the child grow in their womb, often risking their life to do so? In many cases, the discussion does not even make sense. It is even more ridiculous when feminist men pride themselves for taking "the burden" off their wives. All they did is take away their natural privilege.

This also becomes even less surprising if one looks outside of the academic box and realizes that most people don't have exiting creative jobs where they change the world, but mostly mundane stuff like being supermarket cashiers, or, at best, nurses - which is a nice job, but should women really leave their kids so that the can change the diapers of strangers instead?

Feminism want us to believe that taking care of kids is a burden that men unfairly push to women while they go off to have fun at work. And huge parts of society have swallowed it.

Here in Europe, many governments think they have to force men to take paternity leave, to further equality. They think men don't want to spend time with their kids because of role models or whatsoever.

The reality is probably in most cases that the the issue is mostly financial. Even with paid paternity leave, there usually is less money on the table than with full time work, specially since women tend to choose less well paid careers (another privilege - they don't have to provide for the family, so they can afford to trade income for convenience and social status).

I think it is great if fathers can take paternity leave and recommend everybody to try to do it. but there are actual real world issues preventing it, not just memes ("societal expectations").

Mud

Applying statistics to individuals is not automatically bad. You may be interested if "your group" has inflated risks for certain cancers, for example.

True, in a way, as they want to artificially inflate those scores. As I said, it was a simplified example. The bottom line is they want to hardcode their politics into the algorithm.

but surely you want to make sure every PoC is individually compensated for the systemic racism they had to endure? How is that different?

I am not opposed to scrutinizing decision making. But that should happen at the human level, not by scrubbing information from the data or output of algorithms.

Some bias is also necessary for survival. When I am walking home at night, I am more likely to change the side of the street when a group of men is approaching me, than when a group of women is approaching me. You can tell me that is discrimination all you want, but I value my life higher than your ideals of political correctness.

Arguably, in your example showing the most prominent CEOs is the correct response. It is ideology to claim "women are only not CEOs because they have no role models, therefore we should make our AI lie about female CEOs to normalize the idea, so that more women will become CEOs".

Actually I think there are lots of articles about female CEOs, as female CEOs will be more likely to be written about than male CEOs ("the top female CEOs fo 2021" and so on, there are bound to be countless such articles).