ebiggs
Jews are only 0.2% of the World’s population, but 17.46% of the World’s billionaires. Thus their representation is 8,730% of their population share.
Of course any non-idiot would see this as simply an interesting fact worthy of researching out how being a jew correlates with success in a merit-based competency hierarchy... and not a reason to hate jews for conspiring to take over the world. While we're at it, we should probably also chill out on white men in general too.
Oh wow, a woman headed react? That's cool.
Oh wait, a trans-woman... so that's socio-cultural diversity though not biological diversity - still born a white male.
Unless transgenderism isn't a choice but part of somebody's biological nature, then it is biological diversity, right?
erm, is being biologically predisposed to not liking chocolate also biological diversity? Wow, how much biological diversity goes unnoticed by diversity advocates? Maybe fb is biologically diverse after all!?
Isn't it cool we're all unique individuals with unique interests, although fb has mostly people who all share an interest in tech. True diversity would be to get people not interested in tech at fb.
Anecdotally, I went in with my wife for an ultrasound on a Friday the 13th and it was definitely less crowded that day. Rest assured, no Rosemary's Baby detected, nor any heart defects, etc. I just benefited from not having to take a seat in the waiting room :).
Does the tZero from AC Propulsion that inspired the Tesla Roadster not get the credit because it was just a kit car?
When I see a bunch of Maybe monads, for example, I can instantly know that the programmer's intent was maybe to not just have a type safe null and avoid null pointer exceptions, but also to possibly make use of Maybe's toxicity.
What I mean by toxicity is you know how in some languages you have "not a number" aka NaN? A NaN times / divided by / added to / subtracted from anything is a NaN, that means that if you have a complex formula, if you throw a NaN in there anyway you get back a NaN. Maybe works the exact same way but with all functions not just arithmetic operators. That's what I mean by its toxicity.
Without Maybe you'd have to explicitly apply that logic everywhere you'd otherwise apply a monadic "join." The reader would then have to study your code much more carefully to understand that intent, and probably look at it with some skepticism that the toxicity works perfectly every time or is in every place you might expect. And of course not everyone values brevity and expressiveness, but when done right it makes code more readable not less, and Monads done right facilitate that.
Maybe's toxicity is just an example of pretty much any "magic" you can build into a Monad. You could for example have a Future Monad that will handle asynchronous control flow for you.
As a side matter, it's not just working around Haskell's strict type system that make Monads a good fit for IO, but also Haskell's non-strict execution.. monads help things happen in the right order which is crucial for IO. That's kind of neat when you think about - the bridge between the mathematical rigor of pure functional code and real world devices that make computing useful. Functional purity makes code easier to reason about and less error-prone.
Also, if the equal protection clause was misinterpreted by the judicial branch, the legislative bodies of the federal and state governments have the power to revise and make it clear that the law was never to be interpreted that way.
The only time the executive has ignored supreme court ruling I believe was when Lincoln was in charge, and well, to say the nation was divided at that time would be an understatement.
Take for example the kinship role of fatherhood. This is something the state is rightly committed to taking a stance on, and there's a branch of law (family) to deal with rights, obligations, etc around this kinship bond.
What is a father? Is it a biological father who has not given up his rights? Is it a biological father who has no custody rights? Is it a biological father who has terminated all rights? IS it a non-biological father who has adopted? Is it a step-father who has a different name and doesn't have custodial rights but has been called daddy as long as the child can remember? Is it the man who's name is on the birth certificate but whose dna proves it's not his?
Or should we abandon the word father all together and say "civil custodial guardian." instead to try and separate culture from the state?
The separation of culture from state signifies what you hear all the time on fox news: a culture war. There was a culture war around civil rights 50 years ago too, and now nobody thinks twice about it. Eventually the same will be true around gay rights. The idea that you have to step around terms like wife, husband, or marriage - because they get folks riled up would be like stepping around "father" because it might get some folks riled up - it just doesn't happen to as much right now.
One could argue that marriage is an affinity kinship bond, not a descent kinship bond - and thus fundamentally different than parenthood. But that's a biological distinction - not really a civil distinction given all the tremendous amount of legal work that has gone into removing and assigning parental rights for both biological and non biological children.
Marriage isn't a dirty word, it's not a religious word, it's a cultural word that describes an incredibly important affinity kinship bond. A society with plural cultures does not require that we rename everything under sterile newspeak words.
How to do such a thing? Seems impossible, but even a 4x or 5x overhead would be a giant bargain for the debtors next to the sharks, and the sharks wouldn't be able to compete on those margins.