Builder

Well yes, but without explaining why, you're basically saying "here's my explanation, it doesn't explain the data, believe it anyways." You've explained that the source is incomplete. Okay. I agree. Data is imperfect, we're never going to have the full picture. What, then, is your explanation for the 20% pay gap? Do you have data to support your hypotheses, or do you just hate mine? What is your conclusion? That across the country, women consistently go into the same jobs at smaller companies, and get paid less as a result? Why? No, you're right. This is all shades of gray. I will say that I am about 99% certain that there is a wage gap, because I haven't seen better data proving otherwise, only anecdotal explanations.

I read the transcript and looked at their sources. They're saying that it's about choices in jobs. This data set reflects that criticism. This is people with the same job. This is called "disparate impact" in discrimination law, and is fairly well known. Look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact I don't know what companies you've worked in but in big companies it absolutely gets stratified to the degree that the military is. And yes, that individual situation is possible, but you need to show why that consistently causes statistical, disparate impact. Your individual anecdotes do not refute labor statistics for a country of 300 million people. Try harder. Then don't fucking hire her, fucking fire her. If she's complete shit, fire her! This is not hard. You've yet to explain why women are consistently 20% worse at their jobs than men. Uh, no I didn't, because the 5% number is wrong. I was using a hypothetical in the original argument. In this circumstance you would expect men to get paid 5% more, not 19% more, as they do. "Those numbers do not take into account experience, education, length of time in job, value of position in the company, how much the company makes (e.g. is company A able to pay their employees as much as company B), etc. There's so many variables not accounted for." Alright, so account for those variables, and prove me wrong. Just saying my point is wrong because you can think up counterfactuals that refute it does not make it so. "Where's your data to prove that woman are working at larger companies and deserve or have earned greater pay? There is none, that's why those USBLS numbers are meaningless." Because it doesn't make any fucking sense to say otherwise. Occam's razor applies here. Why do men in janitorial positions get paid 22% more than women when these positions are all contracted out? Okay, but you have to actually explain this point, with evidence. What's your explanation for this, and how does it fit the data better? You can't just guess here, you have to extrapolate from what is known to what is implied, you can't do it backwards. I'll say what I've said before. If you have a better set of data for analyzing these problems, please provide it. Until then, this is the best data we've got, flawed though it may be, and people don't seem to understand what disparate impact means.

It doesn't, but I'll reiterate: if you consistently pay women with equal qualifications (this is a big if, I realize) in the same jobs as men 20% less, you're discriminating. It's not me saying this, it's labor law. If your women are performing 20% less than men across the board, demote them to a position where their pay makes sense or fire them. You cannot, however, keep them in the same jobs as men, with the same qualifications as men, and pay them less. Whether this means you misjudged their qualifications or what is irrelevant: it's discrimination.

First off, please make an effort to read this whole post and respond to the relevant parts in your reply. I'm putting in the effort, so I expect you to. No skirting around the question, please. That being said, I guess I have to link it for you, even though it's pretty obvious: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm "Wage gap calculated from 2015 median weekly earnings of full-time salary workers in the United States as per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics." Look at the objections I raised in my initial post, and tell me why they're wrong. Please. The facts are there, they're right underneath the number on Narrow the Gapp. If you seriously think PragerU is a better source than the US Bureau of Labor Statistics then we have nothing to discuss. Prager's sources are all self-referential to them and Christina Hoff Sommers, I looked at them. They're no good. This is not an "SJW move," this is called analytical rigor. The US BLS is a disinterested third party, and Narrow the Gapp's stats are calculated from their data. PragerU and Louder with Crowder are not third parties, and not only that, the sources you linked do nothing to refute the point that I am making. Y'all have yet to even make a legitimate point. I'm waiting. And I'll reiterate, because you haven't confronted this either: what makes a 5% pay gap okay? Your analysis here does not refute my point. Okay, so then why does it hold for entry-level jobs that anyone can take, like janitors? I can assure you that Apple's janitors do not get paid 20% more than janitors at every other company, they're all through contracting companies. You can't compare the same job because only one person can have a job. It's impossible. It makes very little sense that across the board that women are what, working at smaller companies than men and that's the explanation? That's what your argument is, no? Where's your data to back it up? Somebody working 24 minutes longer in an 8 hour day is not a twenty percent increase. That is less than a five percent increase. Okay, but again, you need data to back this up, not just anecdotal hypotheticals. Show me the data that proves that set does not have the full picture. You haven't done it yet. Well, you're at odds with labor law here. Equal qualifications covers meaningful experience, becoming a specialist means they're not working the same job, and beyond that, I can't see how this is different from garden variety sexism. Women across the board are 20% less competent and performant at their jobs (regardless of industry) with equal qualifications to men? It could be the case, but I would say that's at odds with the accepted neuroscience. Additionally with regards to labor law it doesn't matter if you say your women are performing worse than your men and that's why you're paying them 20% less: you're not allowed to do that. The intentions barely matter with discrimination law, it's only the outcome that matters. If your actions lead to a discriminatory outcome, that is the legal definition of discrimination. I would also say, fire those women. Find better women. We exist.

Oh god...PragerU? Louder with Crowder? First off, get better sources. Narrow the Gapp uses data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they link it below. Also that's a 19% wage gap, not 29%. 29% would be if they get paid 71c on the dollar, but they get paid 81c on average. Labor markets are also not susceptible to supply and demand in the same way that commodities are, so the idea that corporations could reduce their costs by hiring women and that because they don't that that means the gap doesn't exist is a direct fallacy. Case in point, raising the minimum wage does not increase unemployment. This was discovered through research in the early 1990s. Refuting the video itself, they don't account for the refutations in my original post. The 81% number is based off of people working in the same field under analytically comparable conditions. That video doesn't even refute this point, they just say that men and women go into different fields. Well duh. Please be a little bit more careful in the arguments you're making, as I've already refuted all of them in my first post here. But let's just assume they're right, even though they're wrong. What accounts for consistently paying women 5% less than men across the board? That's not ok either. The idea that anything less than equal pay for equal work is ok is laughable. DItto on the gay transsexual though (notice the avi?), but of course I'm white. That doesn't mean (and I don't believe) that that makes you right and me wrong, that's just idiotic. And no, I'm not trolling, I'm trying to have a serious discussion here.

Common sense never secured anything, humans are terrible, terrible creatures and the only way to protect them is with machines. People have notoriously bad judgment. OP, just stick with Windows Defender and you'll be fine.

The amount of attacks are directly proportional to the popularity of the platform. Additionally Microsoft was extremely cavalier about security for years and years but they've gotten a lot better in recent years. If you're running a Mac that is mission critical you should have at least three tiers of backup: bootable backups (ideally daily) with something like SuperDuper, continuous backups with Time Machine, and offsite backups to something like BackBlaze or CrashPlan. There are definitely still fewer threats on macOS than Windows but this isn't necessarily because Mac security is inherently superior. It's pretty good, but the hierarchy these days for system security still goes iOS (non-jailbroken) > ChromeOS (no chroot) > everything else

What's the open source alternative to comprehensive GUI scripting? What's the open source alternative to the Cocoa APIs, arguably one of the most elegant APIs in existence? And yeah I know what Linux is! my dude, I am a computer programmer. Linux on the desktop is a goddamn nightmare though. All the user interfaces suck and nothing works without spending three hours fucking around with it to do basic shit. Why are you going into other peoples' threads to tell them what operating system to use?

definitely not. where else can i get the Aqua DE? applescript? osascript? total integration of the GUI with the command line? or do i have to deal with the shit-tier Linux options or the complete and total abomination that is the Windows UI.

and that's where you would be wrong. no idea why they're marketing them to gamers but bloated, enormous C++ builds on 32 threads make -j32 all ...i could die happy.

http://narrowthegapp.com

pricing's in https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/5/30/15710476/intel-core-x-processors-i9-chips-i5-i9-skylake-kaby-lake-computex "To that end, the Core X series scales from models with 4-cores topping out with the $1,999 Core i9 Extreme, which Intel proudly points out is the first consumer desktop processor to offer 18-cores and 36-threads."

Hi all I'm doing a themed build in a couple of weeks and the theme is "permanent revolution." I was just wondering how many communisms are required on average? I realize I'm just a beginner but need some help working out the kinks. I'm planning to use a i7-6950X "Class Consciousness" edition and a Titan Black "Special Antifa" limited edition. For reference here's the blueprint I'm working on:

In an uncharacteristically shallow display of idiocy, my good friend, comrade, and occasionally saucy business partner @Kloaked has committed what we in-the-know know as a shitepost, an assay, a farticle if you will. (this is not to say that Mr. Kloaked is not normally an idiot, but simply that the depth of his ignorance is ordinarily far greater. if his ignorance were a mountain, it would be the marianas trench, the mount everest of oceanly low points.) As to the accusation of my shallowness, I will have you know SIR that I have an IQ score of at least 255,000 IQ points as verified to me by the most stringent of Facebook quizzes. It is theoretically impossible for me to be wrong about any subject at any time, and empirically speaking, it hasn't happened yet either. And I do realize that I am nowhere near as stupid as most people on here, (how many other people have an IQ of over 500,000,000,000 points? 14? 69? 2? -8?) and for that I do apologize for not fully comprehending your categorically inane babbling about freedom of expression. Nonetheless, of all the subjects on which I am not wrong, I am unquestionably the most not wrong about politics. I consider being not-wrong a serious hobby of mine to which I devote a serious portion of my time. The profit margin on this time spent is not great in this forum as it continually refuses to recognize the extremely high level of not-wrongedness I have achieved. You would recognize this if you knew me in real life because I have received as an award for this massively ignoble achievement the word "GULLIBLE" tattooed across my forehead in Futura Bold. (I wanted Arial but all they had was Helvetica which is a shitty ripoff of Arial if you ask me) When the human race is broiled to death by global cooling, the history of monumental not-wrongedness will go something like this: Plato => Kant => Julian Casablancas => Builder. (unquestionably. i have proven the preceding in immaculately exquisite propositional logic. it is deductively true.) As for The Strokes videos, they exist in my post as an open kitchen does in a high-end restaurant. You know my thinking was made with high-quality ingredients and I have nothing to hide. You can see here the meat cleaver, the stovetop, the bloodied stump of an arm that I accidentally hacked off while preparing intellectual gnocchi last night. You see, Mr. Kloaked, (or do you prefer Doctor? yeah, it suits you better. doctor of flunkosophy) you can really only use the "OP doesn't like other people's opinions" once before you run into an infinite regress of logic and reason (as proved by Fallacy Man) because in saying so you have established yourself as not liking other peoples opinions and yet have not actually done anything to refute them. This is to say in so many other words: right back atcha', asshole. Furthermore, if I really did not like other peoples' opinions, I would perhaps not have spend or continue to spend so much of my time soliciting them, hmmm? In fact I love other peoples' opinions, I just find the vast majority of peoples' opinions ugly, boring, and stupid. Of course, the world is often ugly, boring, and stupid, and you have to admit there is always something redeeming, some je ne SAY WHAT in ignorance that makes the world go round. Nonetheless, I do happen to find opinions such as "George Soros should be the next Hitler" to be particularly distasteful, and SHOCKER I do find it particularly disquieting that you don't. You see, these are in the category of opinions that would have made Nixon's toes curl to say the least. Now if Mr. and Mrs. Ultra-Nationalist over here were proposing something like proletarian internationalism or "sex and burgers on the beach, for all, forever" (as I do) we might have something interesting to discuss. It's just that this whole fascism business has been done to death, hasn't it? We fought a good two wars on this shit before all those European Nationalists decided to pack it in for the greater good. White nationalism is passé in the worst possible sense, and if this isn't already painfully obvious to you keyboard neoreactionaries consider why all of your intellectual heroes died at the latest nearly 100 years ago. Those pasty white motherfuckers with the sadomasochistic mustaches couldn't even hold their own against those degenerate Russkies and stupid American liberals in 1942. (see https://twitter.com/BiasBe/status/812109660824207360 for infallible proof of this fact) By all means, keep spouting your bullshit, just don't be surprised when I don't want to listen to it.

When I left this board two years ago I feared the forum was headed in a bad direction with regards to how politics was being moderated, and I had better ways to spend my time than arguing with people over whether or not sexism is real and prevalent. After voicing those concerns I was informed by Slick that the rules had changed and that everything stupid that happened around the time of GamerGate wouldn't happen again. I still do have better ways to spend my time, and I realize that for those of you who never knew me I'm not missed and for those that did know me one user doesn't really mean much. But I thought it prudent to make this thread because I was horrified at the sheer cravenness of some of the shit around here. The sheer fucked-uppedness of this flaming shitpile of a forum was not apparent at first breach and probably still isn't to a lot of you, but just in case there's any confusion about why I left, this idiot's profile is a good encapsulation of why: https://linustechtips.com/main/profile/143680-survivornvl/ Okay, what the fuck is going on here? The dude has a white nationalist flag on his profile and calls himself an "American Ultranationalist?" And what's more is he's said (of George Soros, the conspiracy theories surrounding which are far too silly to even warrant refuting. The dude's a centrist. You want to know what he believes, read Karl Popper. And speaking of Popper...well we'll get to that later.) Why is this considered acceptable behavior? Forget your opinion of feminism or the left in general, a forum on which blatant white-nationalism and support of nazism is considered within the range of acceptable discourse is far too close to Stormfront for my tastes, and I cannot imagine I'm the only person that feels this way. I will refer you to the philosopher of science Karl Popper's evaluation of the paradox of tolerance: Let's pause for a second and consider the difference between liberalism and leftism in this instance, and why I side with the liberals. This is a fundamentally liberal position in the political science sense, in that Popper does not want the intolerant to be slain en masse the way leftists do, he would just prefer not to have to argue rationally with Nazis who are speaking from a fundamentally unscientific and irrational position. Seriously, ask any Nazi or fascist. Rationalism and enlightenment are for liberals, Julius Evola prefers esoteric religious (even "magic") philosophy which eschews entirely the liberal convention of rational discourse. As it happens this post is a pretty decent summation of why I don't bother engaging here anymore, because I cite Popper to trash internet nazis and argue about this shit day in and day out forever and ever and those skills are best put to use elsewhere. Just for the hell of it, I'll predict what 90% of the responses to this post will be. I urge you to avoid using these phrases and variations thereof if you do choose to reply because their unsoundness has been demonstrated above: "suppressing freedom of speech" "creating an echo chamber" "safe space" "intolerant" "scared of free thought" "triggered" "anti-American" "anti-white" "just accept the election results" "whining" "sjw" "libtard" (cringes) I realize I'll get banned for calling this out but let there be no question as to why, when it happens: the mods would rather have literal nazis on this board than people who are just here to discuss tech.