Not the original commenter, but I would guess that the goal would be to reflect the population. Women are about 50% of the population, so assuming all things created equal, they should be about 50% of any other population, like those with a specific job title.

You missed a very, very important keyword there: “deserved.”

Theologians miss a key point of rational debate where they don’t provide proper definitions and make big assumptions that aren’t great.

Who defines what the “correct” effect of an action is? Who defines what consequence is deserved by a choice? If God is the almighty being, he decides what is right and wrong. In Abrahamic tradition, God defines all of these arbitrary rules and expects humanity to obey them without question. Shit, God ordered Abraham himself to murder despite that supposedly being against the rules.

God is like a kid that holds a magnifying glass focused on an arbitrary point near the anthill. He set up the conditions for us to hurt ourselves according to his arbitrary rules. Why didn’t he tell Satan to fuck off with the fruit? Why did he allow Satan to exist in the first place? If God created everything, then he is responsible for everything by our human logic. So God can fuck right off

The lack of policing ideas is what allowed Hitler to come to power. This is a result of the tolerance paradox. A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, or it will erode into an intolerant society.

I have zero idea what your angle is, but for the benefit of others…

Nazi-ism is a chosen belief system with a core belief in depriving other groups of basic human rights. The depriving other people of basic human rights is the key part.

Hate speech is directed towards people with attributes that they cannot change or religion. Religion gets added in there because changing religion is not a simple thing, and in major religions doesn’t hurt people. (Don’t start citing religious terrorists - that is fundamentalism within a religion and not a commonly shared belief among all followers.

So hating on nazis is cool.

It’s not a matter of reward or punishment. It’s a matter of the skills required for continued success.

Early startups require big risk-taking, progressing at an absurd speed, charisma to get investor capital, and really just being a little crazy.

Once the concept is proven to be viable and potentially profitable, the focus needs to shift from proving it can work to making it sustainable. This involves less risk, process improvements to avoid issues like getting sued, better money management, more careful time management to avoid burnout of non-founder employees, and generally just being more rational about things.

It’s rare that a person can exhibit both of these sets of behaviors, so companies will often swap out the former for the latter as a company matures. If they didn’t, the founders might unintentionally drive the company into the ground by taking unnecessary risks after finding something that already works.

Does that answer your question, or did I miss the mark, still?

And I’m guessing a smaller chip makes it even harder to detect. Makes sense. Thank you

Can anyone inform me regarding the purpose of preventing China from producing these more advanced chips? Is it protectionism? Is it anti-China policy? Is there some kind of particular military application?

Yeah, that last sentence was quite odd. Where did that come from…?

That was a really, really good article. My observations from living here for 7 years match, and I learned some stuff. It’s good to hear that these initiatives are happening. I try to teach coding in English as a non-profit, but I don’t know enough Korean to reach these other folks. I should do more

Ah, sorry. I realize I wasn’t clear at all. I wasn’t agreeing with the previous comment. Just mentioning how it was a problem. This author sounds like they don’t know much

Haven’t read outliers, but I live in Korea. Weak people in authority here is a serious problem. See the Sewol ferry incident: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol

The culture of saving face and not causing disturbance compounds the problem. For example, some married couples prefer to not know if their partner is cheating so as to not disturb the peace of the family. Fortunately, this is becoming more rare, but it is still an issue.

Edit: Not agreeing with the previous comment. Just mentioning where the idea may have come from. I don’t believe Korean culture impacts plane crash rates. When the chain of command and responsibilities are clear, Koreans make stuff happen. It’s actually quite admirable. And cultural idiosyncrasies aside, people generally try to do what they believe to be the right thing, and not letting a plane crash is pretty right under normal circumstances

Our parents thought “free handouts” weren’t good for us and were only for “bad people” which was inexplicably often black people

We do, actually! You should read up on immunotherapy. It’s not for everyone, but it works in many cases.

The metaphor holds up, too. With sufficient time and effort, you can make things work.

Good point. That stuff is chill. I dig me some Johnny Cash now and then, too

Don’t dare say Winnie the Pooh in China, friend.

That whole culture is cancer. A lot of Koreans here think country music is typical American music, and i have to explain to them how that whole culture is super, super fucked and how they need to turn off that fucking music

Why?

Your reference to academic debate in a previous comment is hilarious. Academics know how to stay on topic.

The original comment you replied to was referencing Israel’s behavior as terroristic. You provided a counter argument that nation states cannot conduct terrorism based on the definition of the term terrorism. When provided with evidence supporting the opposing claim, you say the evidence is not valid because it is not authoritative. You then say there is no authoritative source for such evidence. You then use a classic goal post argument method of saying, “even if your argument is invalid, that doesn’t work because x,” rather than focusing on the original argument. You also misuse appeal to authority. Appeal to authority as a fallacy is only a fallacy when the item in question isn’t explicitly defined by that authority. When you moved the goal post, you operated under the assumption of your continued argument that dictionaries are authoritative. However, your language is imprecise enough that you’re going to claim you didn’t make that assumption.

That is not proper academic debate method. That is political debate method. This is the kind of shit that makes it difficult to make meaningful progress today. But hey, since we’re not doing proper academic debate anyway, I’ll indulge in some ad hominem. You’re a terrible person for trying to confound a serious issue with irrelevant pedantic arguments and arguments in bad faith. Fuck off. No one cares if “terrorism” - as defined by you as some authority on words - can be applied to nation states. A nation state committed an act meant to cause terror in civilians (in order to take their land). People understood that as the intent, which is the purpose of words anyway.

Ah, you were referencing English. Thank you.

Ah! I learned something recently about lingua franca. It was a combination of French and Italian jargon. https://www.britannica.com/topic/lingua-franca

What are today’s lucky 10,000?

Sorry, what is called the Lingua Franca? I missed which part you’re referencing

I only made the French comment because the French government has an official entity granted the authority to define the official French language.