Lurker > CruelBuffalo

Mike Pence

Their best athletes are banned this round

Everyone else who survived either sucks or is getting blackballed by judges.

Really, the IOC is putting themselves down to Russia's level with this pettiness.

Putin's popularity isn't going down, all this is going to do is strengthen nationalism and give them a victim complex to play out

When there's a disparity in a field that favors women, it never crosses anyone's mind that sexism might have something to do with.

CruelBuffalo posted...

They never give a shit why less men are choosing to go into nursing or veterinary medicine, or why men are much more likely to choose fields where they'll be killed or maimed.

Not really on my radar. Though a better example would be why men dont go into teaching since many young boys dont see male role models in school.

Im curious, if youre complaining that those are big issues, do you feel the lack of women in tech jobs in an issue?

I don't think they're big issues. I care if there's an actual discriminatory policy that keeps men or women out of certain fields. I don't particularly care about the choices individuals make (in this context).

They never give a shit why less men are choosing to go into nursing or veterinary medicine, or why men are much more likely to choose fields where they'll be killed or maimed.

Man i started to get erect as I imagined women in spandex and when i hit your link i was upset and closed my browser... yet my erection is now throbbing.

Meh i finished to it anyways

to make a big issue of something minor

What exactly am I deflecting on? Do you want me to say we should be sanctioning Russia? Fine, we should be sanctioning Russia. Do

A_Good_Boy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Why did you omit that the list included China, Iran, and N. Korea?

Why are you deflecting?

I'm not? The context of what he said changes if you list only one of those countries.

How so?

Because there's a difference between stating "these countries are a general threat to our country" and "we are under attack by russia"?

s0nicfan posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Why did you omit that the list included China, Iran, and N. Korea?

Why are you deflecting?

I'm not? The context of what he said changes if you list only one of those countries.

How so?

Why did you omit that the list included China, Iran, and N. Korea?

On one hand that's going to make the bureaucracy problem way worse.

On the other hand, liberals have been complaining about how underprivileged areas are food deserts and this is definitely a potential solution to that problem.

Anteaterking posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Same difference. There's no evidence the data is biased either. The moment we start playing politics with our datasets we've screwed ourselves over.

All data is inherently biased. We don't have the luxury of working with data points in infinite dimensional space. Choices of different variables can lead to dramatically different models even with regards to the variables they have in common. And that's when we have objective qualitative data.

It feels like you are trying to argue that Uber shouldn't pay women more per job to balance out this effect, but I don't think anyone in this topic is saying they should. But it would be improper to try to use this data set to say "Men are just better at earning money than women".

You're not. Buffalo is, in a roundabout way.

Cut the crap. The nebulous "but WHY I wonder" questions are never genuine

There's no secret sexist patriarchal conspiracy,

A program that is going to give more value and nutrition to the people who need it all while saving the taxpayers billions of dollars?

Sounds gre......

Wait....Trump is behind this? Fuck him and this "plan". Literally nazi Germany with a dictator controlling what we eat!

CruelBuffalo posted...

Im gonna laugh for getting modded for saying someone has average intelligence

You put down an entire sex to call someone stupid

um
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_at_the_Olympics
says 196

Anteaterking posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Same difference. There's no evidence the data is biased either. The moment we start playing politics with our datasets we've screwed ourselves over.

All data is inherently biased. We don't have the luxury of working with data points in infinite dimensional space. Choices of different variables can lead to dramatically different models even with regards to the variables they have in common. And that's when we have objective qualitative data.

It feels like you are trying to argue that Uber shouldn't pay women more per job to balance out this effect, but I don't think anyone in this topic is saying they should. But it would be improper to try to use this data set to say "Men are just better at earning money than women".

You're not. Buffalo is, in a roundabout way.

s0nicfan posted...

The blind algorithm isn't being discriminatory. Full stop. Everything beyond that is irrelevant to the discussion.

I didn't say it was being discriminatory. You jumped on my earlier tangent about non-blind data leading to non-blind results even if being fed through a blind algorithm.

scar the 1 posted...

So even when it looks equal on a surface level, because the algorithm doesn't discriminate by gender, these structures result in an unequal distribution. This is the part that one side cries itself hoarse over, and the other handwaves away as "personal choices".

OTOH, the algorithm's purpose isn't to account for structural gender problems, it's to reward the drivers who earn Uber the most profit, thereby encouraging more behavior by them that earns them the most profit

the structural biases working against women--their driving habits resulting in less fares/hour and their domestic responsibilities resulting in less of the most needed hours--means they earn uber less money.

it wouldn't make sense for uber to pay employees who earn them less the same as employees who earn them more. they'd lose their highest-earning employees to a competitor who did not try to correct for these biases. quits are at all-time highs right now, so this is a real concern.

Reading about any study from the general media is mind numbing. I recommend everyone disengage any time a journalist says "study says..."

CruelBuffalo posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I've used Uber in 3 different cities now, ~20 rides total, and have yet to get a female driver.

Also, I hope Uber is ready for the angry feminist mob heading their way.

I had one female driver, lol she also showed she had a gun after chatting with her a bit. That was interesting lol. (We were asking how she deals with assholes)

That was stupid of her.

voldothegr8 posted...

I've used Uber in 3 different cities now, ~20 rides total, and have yet to get a female driver.

Also, I hope Uber is ready for the angry feminist mob heading their way.

I had one female driver, lol she also showed she had a gun after chatting with her a bit. That was interesting lol. (We were asking how she deals with assholes)

s0nicfan posted...

What a shock, a "wage gap" study that finds that men earn more for the same job by working longer hours during harder periods with more experience is being used to argue for equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

yep. by bloomberg, a source that is focusing its market on specific customer bases, such as 'angry men who respond to ragebait' and 'angry women who are looking for fulfillment of their confirmation bias'

I've used Uber in 3 different cities now, ~20 rides total, and have yet to get a female driver.

Also, I hope Uber is ready for the angry feminist mob heading their way.