hsdistefa

Only on HN can you find a thread discussing the merits of eugenics. These are not new ideas, in fact they were popular among 19th century intellectuals until those ideas culminated into some of the worst atrocities in recent human history in Nazi Germany.

There is no such thing as a "non morally horrendous solution," giving the power to decide who should procreate and who shouldn't to a single group or "algorithm" violates one of the most basic freedoms that we as humans have.

This doesn't take into account that the stock didn't begin to vest until a worker was at Amazon for one year, and with such high employee turnover few made it to that mark.

I worked in a lab where we had a similar problem reconstructing 3d images from manual sections via the same procedure.

Not only is it a painstaking process, but some slices are lost due to human error while sectioning and the tissue is mechanically distorted when placed onto the slides (squished between the glass and the cover slip).

The solution was simple, albeit much more expensive than sectioning: just MRI scan the organ.

I too resent that climate science has become politicized, however large groups of people refusing to engage in any discussion is not the only issue here. Those that label anyone who question any facet of climate science as skeptics or deniers are just as much a part of the issue.

As someone who has worked in science for several years, questioning is central to understanding any scientific inquiry--especially with regard to such an incredibly complex and nuanced field as climatology. If these questions are continuously suppressed our understanding will ultimately be skewed.

I only hope that we can continue this discourse on such an important subject without resorting to immediate emotional responses in order to come to the most accurate picture that we possibly can.