generic_user

> The world trade order is tilted in favor of the US, as are IP rules (favoring the incumbent power, with a head start of several decades).

This is not a US only issue.

the only incentive to create IP whether its scientific, technology, or the arts is that the creator can monetize there creation through copyright, patents etc. IP is the foundation of growth for this century for the entire industrialized world. I doubt the EU or anyone else supports Chinas IP theft, it has ill effects on all IP holders including EU companies.

> I for one support the Chinese in this conflict, if for nothing else, simply for the possibility of putting some restraint on the out-of-control Hegemon.

your entitled to your opinion. but I don't support the tariffs and other measures because I support the President of the US. I think the strategy behind China 2025 if implemented would lead to a destabilization of the global economy. that could very quickly lead to a serious war.

> You are not, and the rest of the world is pretty much not in agreement with the US

On some of your points Iran etc, sure there is a lot of the world that disagrees with the US position. including many US citizens. but on the issues of China's trade abuses and the Huawei ban I think most of the the world including those in the EU, UK, Japan etc, want to see China move away from there current ambitions.

> What are those issues?

The issue is certainly not that China wants to advance there local industries. The US has spent the last 40 years+ helping china develop its industry and technology.

The Issue is that China was obligated to develop reciprocal free trade like the rest of the WTO members. Over the last 20 years they have been moving farther away from that into a state socialist mercantilist expansionist power.

A few of the issues includes the Theft of intellectual property, Industrial espionage, Lack of market access and state monopoly domination of there internal markets. Dumping of steel and other commodities. Currency manipulation, etc.

there is a very long list.

the EU has had been putting tariffs on Chinese steel for years due to aggressive dumping of steel which has harmed EU industry and distorted prices.

I think that this confrontation has been building for a long time. and now there is a consensus, a global consensus among the liberal democracies including the EU members that China 2025 is step to far away from the normalized reciprocal free trade system.

The fundamental issues surrounding China 2025 which has prompted a shift in trade posture between the United States and China affect every other developed manufacturing nation in the world. Including Germany and the rest of the EU Nations.

Just because the EU has not gotten publicly involved does not mean that they are not involved privatively in negotiations. Europe along with Japan, Korea etc have the luxury to stay quiet because the US is taking a very public and direct strategy.

The US is the only Nation that can take that very public role.

thats a good summation, it's important to note that the "Made in China 2025" is the explicit Official policy issued by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. So this is not interpretation or exaggeration. The official policy of The Peoples Republic of China is to raise the domestic sourcing of essentially all high-tech high-value goods to 75% domestic production. And also export these goods into other markets.

They may not state it publicly but I think all the industrialied producer economies Fron the US to Europe and Asia are scared to death of the implications China 2025 has for there own high-tech high-value industries.

Commercial farms generally have some form of Crop insurance along with equipment insurance etc.

I don't think very small one man farms that sell directly at farmers markets are eligible for most of the programs. But most of those people grow in residential areas not properly zoned for agriculture.

Vertical could be interesting to try in those micro backyard farms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_insurance

Its not objective criteria that is the problem. Its the interpretation and misrepresentation by ideologues that is inadequate.

'just having the right parents will push your sores up on average'

That has little to do with the objectivity or subjectivity of the test. There can be a wide variation of social development between racial groups, economic classes, religious communities, geographic regions etc. Not to mention individual IQ and ability.

A standardized test in say, mathematics is objective. The same tests that demonstrate competency are administered all over the world in every country and culture in the world. You can objectively determine the level of ability of any given student regardless of race or culture.

To simply say that because disparity exist we should therefor abandon standards and objective criteria in favor of a set of morphological corrective fictions that look good on paper but do nothing to fix the disparity is diminishing for everyone.

The problems are simply much harder and more complicated then peoples egos will let them admit. Its very easy to propose a grand theory that fixes all the problem of the world quickly and completely.

The idea of 'Over representation' of a certain racial group based on there percentage of the population is entirely subjective and racist.

At Cal Tech Asians are roughly 50% of students. Cal Tech does not consider race in admissions. Those students rightfully earned there places base on merit and objective criteria.

To make the suggestion that they should be systematically denied those positions because of there race and percentage of population is regressive. Who gets to decide what percentage of what race is a good percentage?

Harvard is desperately trying to cover there criteria because it more then likely runs contrary to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and they are going to louse this law suite if it goes to trial.

Lets see the exact formula that Harvard is using for race vs percentage of the population so we can apply the same formula to all races they admit. Lets compare European, Jewish, Asian student percentages based on the same formula.

I think that administration at Harvard is scared to death of that type of scrutiny but that is exactly what they are going to get. And it could seriously stigmatize the school for decades. And set some significant legal presented so Schools can not use these sort of behind closed doors racist regressive policies any more.

I think this is going to be a watershed case that shows that race based admissions and affirmative action programs no matter the intent are socially and morally regressive. They inevitably lead to racist polices and race based favoritism of one for or another.

"The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...

Harvard is being sued for racial discrimination against Asian Americans in there admissions policies.

They created set of personality criteria for admissions. The criteria was entirely subjective, things like 'positive personality', and 'likability'. Then gave Asians consistently low scores on theses subjective criteria. And then weighed the criteria high enough to knock them out of positions which they would have otherwise qualified for if the admissions was based on standard academic criteria.

Bias and racism is predictable when you choose to abandon Meritocracy based on objective measurable criteria.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...

The promise of a post industrial society was always that western countries would be able to have smaller families with more highly educated children who were more productive and innovative. Future generations could reduce resource usage but improve the standard of living given there continued scientific and educational progress.

Somewhere along the like that seems to have been thrown out the window and the idea of a 'consumer economy' took its place. Now we have a model of low education low wage consumers who keep the economy going by buying endless plastic junk. Perpetually distracted with entertainment and unhealthy unsustainable lifestyles.

I think Japan is making a wise choice.

It only takes one lawsuit that goes to the supreme court to turn this whole debate into a federal legislative debate about civil rights or some other expansive constitutional issue.

When your in a situation where domain registrars and other core infrastructure are making judgements about what political speech they will allow on the internet then I would imagine your very close to a whole host of issues that cut the core of fundamental rights. That's why CloudFlare is so skittish, they know where this could go.

Eventually this rough shot approach is going to hit someone with the resources to fight back. Lets imagine Breitbart gets nuked what then? It's only a matter of time before there is an incident like that. And when it happens its already to late to turn back.

Ok then, lets give Trump, the DOJ and Jeff Sessions the impetus to start drafting legislation to fight 'internet hate speech' and see what they come up with.

edit: > That's a slippery slope argument

Its not. These discussions will be taken over by the political establishment and the courts very quickly with very real consequences.

We have to be steadfast to the idea that defending the free speech that you might find repulsive is defending your own right to free speech.

I think your statement is very short and in the flow of the thread reads poorly if your intention was to say that committing violence can be done by people other then fascists.

It reads as an implicit moralization. But your correct that it is not an explicit statement. So if that was not your intention then I rescind my accusation.

Americans are legally armed and have the right to defend themselves under the constitution. This ideology that Antifa is going to use physical violence to stop people in America from exercising there constitutional rights to free speech is one of the most dangerous ideas I have seen in some time.

These people in Antifa are going to get themselves killed and the people who use deadly force to protect themselves will walk away with out any charges. Its a miracle that there has not been any deaths up to this point.

Please do not condone the use of violence against (insert bad people) on HN. That is totally beyond any legitimate conversation and is illegal and morally repugnant.

Antifa in the US use potentially deadly violence against people they target. There is a growing body of lawsuits and criminal convictions that will most likely have them declared as domestic terrorists at some point.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-prof...

Protesting against fascism is all good but violence has to be denounced on all sides with no exceptions.

The lesson to take away from this regardless of your political leanings is that whatever power you give the state to go after a group you may disagree with will always, eventually be used against you.

It makes no difference if the target groups are alleged terrorists, alt-right, alt-left or or any other group. When you expand the power of the state that diminishes the privacy rights of the citizen that law applies to you, your family and your friends also.

This is a particularly ridiculous straw man because a good portion of the critics of cultural marxism are Jews.

Or you can just move most of your operations to Asia or Eastern Europe where they don't have these western liberal ideological impediments to business. And Ironically provide a higher percentage of highly qualified Women in STEM professions.

So basically its ok to discrimate against Men because Women are 'opressed'. Thats not an acceptable argument imo.

> There are many people who believe he should have been fired anyway for offending his female coworkers and perhaps making them feel unsafe.

I feel unsafe as a Man when people advocate that employers should engage in gender discrimination against Men to enforce an arbitrary ratio of Men/Women the workforce.

Do I have the right to feel safe? Do Men have the right to get Women fired because they feel unsafe and threatened by the ideas they express?

There is a double standard and institutional bias that is being perpetrated by corporations like Google. I see no attempt to address these issues in away that changes there institutional bias and affords equity to the opponents to these ideas. This is simply damage control.

Simply stating that 'its the current year' you can not have those opinions, is not addressing the issue or argument. Its an attempt to shut down debate and silence people.

The article was about techniques you can try to engage people and ideas you disagree with in a more friendly and respectful way. You might want to be more thoughtful of your own posts in that respect.

The bigger problem now is that some of the platforms themselves have chosen to take sides on contentious debates and engage in unfair treatment of the other side. This has the effect of emboldening the most radical players on both sides and drowning out moderate voices and any chance of dialog.

On the side they choose to support the radical voices adopt a zero tolerance policy for the other side and seek to eliminate any decent. The opposing side has proof that the platforms has a bias against them and will try to subvert the debate so thoughtful opinions do not bother under those circumstances.

You can not change anyone's opinion by refusing them a platform to express themselves. Or allowing engagement but employing a double standard where one side gets to be abusive but the other gets punished for the same behaviour.

If we look at the recent case of James Damore he was fired for his views. How many people at Google who support him are going to change there minds on the issue just because The management decided to take a side and silence any opposing views?

Its a question of degree. Yes you have to have 'some' people skills to be a programmer in a team but its a small amount of skill. In a group of people that probably has more in common with you than any other group you have to interact with in life.

But its much less people skills then a manager, in meetings most of the day resolving issues that are much higher level that involve different departments etc.

So your average programming job is well within the social skills of the vast majority of Men. When your evaluating a pool of potential hires its going to be 95% finding the best programmer and then the last 5% is making sure there not crazy or a drug addict etc.

Its never going to be the case that you start out with a pool of resumes from people with really nice personal bios and try and find out which ones can program a computer.

I think this this is the talking points for the Democrats but its not very convincing.

> The way the swings on the special elections are going, which are all violently swinging away from the Republicans.

The Republicans won all 6 special elections.

> Take Ossoff's challenge in Georgia. He lost by 4 points > the Republicans were required to spend $25 million

He lost. And it was the Democrats who spent $23 Million (the most ever spent) on the election not the Republicans. The republicans spent like $3 Million dollars.

Most of the skills that you listed only start to really matter if you try to move into a management position.

No company or project wants rank and file programmers (which is the vast majority of any project) who think there also managers and act as such. Even if you have those skill your job is to focus on your tasks and solve your very specific problems, not the big picture and what everyone else is doing.