Unified in that they were born around the same time. The baby boom was caused by soldiers coming home and fucking like bunnies.
Unified in that they were born around the same time. The baby boom was caused by soldiers coming home and fucking like bunnies.
Yeah, but now we’re drifting into specialized fields and I would suspect that geneticists ignored all the traditional labels in the first place. I’d imagine they define things like that by the rise of a particular mutation, for example.
Generation, as a laymen term, is exactly that. A temporally similar social group.
There is something to be said about abandoning the generational lines though. Pew Research is doing it
As I understand it, only baby boomers are somewhat unified on things and every generation after that drifted more and more into being less distinct, demographically speaking, as a group. The cadence you reference was unified by the end of WWII and, naturally, diffused from there.
What you’re not getting is that it being that influential is a bad thing and that it’s time to pull it from its podium. It’s just a religious text and if you’re censoring any religious texts, you should censor all of them.
Fuck that, the wretched thing doesn’t deserve special treatment. There is nothing about the contents of the bible that are worth granting exception for. You want to ban adult themes? I can think of nothing more deserving of such a ban than the oldest book to incorporate rape, divinely ordained murder (all over the place), instructions on how to perform an abortion, incest, and the severly mixed message of “god loves everyone, unless you don’t worship them, then you get tortured forever”.
They shouldn’t be plotted that way technically. The big 5 are independent traits so they should essentially be sliders, not linked like that.
That said, it’s way easier to see the points when you do that. Easy to miss when colors swap, for example, without the lines when you’ve been looking at this stuff for a few hours.
GNU Terry Pratchett
To pile on: They don’t filter anything, or search anything. They are clever parrots made up of huge streaks of linear algebra. It has no understanding of anything nor interest in doing more than generating sentences that look right given a prompt. Even saying that it has ‘no understanding’ or ‘interest’ is giving it too much credit, implying intelligence or decision making capability. It’s just ridiculously vast math.
What, my ~7 paragraphs isn’t simple? /s
You’re correct. I think I was chafing at the systems in question predisposing friendliness to mean modes that I personally am unskilled at or uncomfortable with despite my value.
My problem with your example is that the loner didn’t have comparable value. If it was supporting other things, then it failed. If it was doing something non obvious, it shouldn’t be compared to the support. It feels fallacious, though I can’t name one specifically.
System sight is itself an issue. Many companies evaluate an employee solely on some performance metric, typically tied to money. Because it’s easy (and lazy).
I’ve had several positions where my task was to keep things running. I added no value, I prevented loss. And those positions get screwed because they’re very difficult to quantify worth and very hard to see (and if it doesn’t create money, they don’t care). You only notice them when something goes wrong. Such an employee may keep everything running all year and get a “meets expectations” because there’s an upper limit on how much contribution the system sees, and the system doesn’t want to put in the effort to see better. I may have had to climb over an air handler to get to a transducer to calibrate, but that’s not sexy and even if I report such effort, it’s what I’m supposed to do (even if I wasn’t, weekend nights are weird).
No one is going to write down “keep machine running 80% of the time” because people unassociated with the task will insist that 100% is the expectation, despite that being unreasonable.
A system built of people is not a black box. We can see them and evaluate them based on the task they’re supposed to do, but the evaluators don’t want to put in the effort to do their tasks in a way that means more work for them.
There’s a comment to be made also about scope creep for a position so that a company doesn’t have to hire marketing and engineering if they can get the engineers to do it. Despite them being suboptimal for the task. Something something down with unrestrained capitalism.
Ok. I’ve lost the plot at this point and made my point. Have a good one.
That’s a pretty contrived setup. If the two top components are not factored into the performance of the whole and they are both defined by their ability to improve other components, then the one doing it’s own thing is not, in fact, a top performer. It’s task is to support others and it fails to do so.
And what if the loner’s task is foundational? It doesn’t have much direct output, but if he’s gone and everything else goes to shit? Those ones are very hard to measure. I know, that’s been my job for a good portion of my career. And things like that are common. Expecting a given performer, say an engineer, to also be good at public speaking has always struck me as impractical.
Were you predisposed to vote for Trump? Then yes.
Our electoral system cannot actually accommodate more than two parties on a mechanical level. It has to do with first past the post and our profoundly dumb electoral college.
Any third party in America doesn’t have any chance whatsoever because of the machine.
I’m aware.
How is the dichotomy true? It’s predicated on “all men are monsters” and that’s patently false, thus the arguments proceeding it are false.
I acknowledged an additional outcome (more like two outcomes, one cascading from the other): “some men are monsters and I am not one of them”. With no further statement. Should you wish to brand me as a monster, the onus is on you to prove it.
Use your words. How is it false. I think some stuff got lost in the formatting.
And we diverge again, though not hugely so.
I feel that you’re unnecessarily blaming statistics (which as someone who does them, doing them well takes work. Though no shortage of people doing them badly, I digress) for a different societal ill: mob mentality.
The ideal solution is to investigate each instance of rape and mete out justice appropriately. Obviously that’s not going to happen. And the current state of affairs is also no good. Obviously, there isn’t a legal way to really handle any of it because everything we’ve mentioned is a crime. It kinda comes down to a cultural shift. People need to be be more willing to accept that rape occurred (because fears of not being believed are pretty valid sadly) and also that justice takes too much time (also a big social problem) and that there should be a lot more stigma about false reporting and a whole bunch of other things. I’m not gonna solve this in a lemmy comment, but I’d hazard that we all need to listen to each other (myself included) to start. I still contend the reason we’re having this conversation is that not enough people listen to anyone that does get raped in addition to a system that hasn’t caught up to the population or the times. I further hazard it isn’t that people are unaware of the horror of being falsely accused, just that it isn’t the biggest issue at hand (though that is a bitter statement for the victim).
There’s no good easy solution, but progress can be made.
And now we’ve circled all the way around to be mostly in agreement. Weird.
I pointedly disagree with the idea using statistics as a crutch, but I’m a tad biased being a data engineer. When it’s 1 in 6 (disregarding dark numbers of bad actors) it gets things moving and provides a reference point for when we finally do get off our collective ass and do something. Kinda have to shotgun whatever motivation will get people moving when it’s that severe. There are many kinds of appeals and that one hits some people, much like an emotional argument hits others differently.
And yeah, 1 in 1000 is also unacceptable. And we can fight that battle when we get there. Let’s not borrow problems from a (much better) future.
Quite the unnuanced words you’re putting in my mouth. Some men are monsters. This is a true statement that you’re degrading for… reasons. I assert that I am not one while recognizing that they exist. Should it be revealed that I am in fact a monster, feel free to shove these words down my throat. I’m perfectly comfortable with women assuming I’m untrustworthy until given reason to do otherwise
Still remains the patently false dichotomy and kafkatrap. It’s a shit rhetorical device that serves no good. This isn’t even careful nuance, it’s pretty obvious.
I’m in a doctor’s office and trying so hard not to disturb everyone around me and it’s not going well.