There is a good amount of evidence, much of it studied, (and much from the transgender community, but not just there) that there is -something- inherent in gender psychology besides hormones. What it is no one knows, but there are clear examples of people who grow up their whole lives with say testosterone but their "intrinsic sex" is female.
I didn't read the actual study, but from the article they are basing this on the amygdala size being bigger but the male brain also just overall being bigger.
My question is: What rules out the bigger size itself (irregardless of overall brain size) causing differences? Perhaps, the ratio of amygdala size to brain size does not matter but rather just the absolute size.
Yet here we are, discussing the secret OS that runs on its own chip and can't be disabled by the end-user.
The world is a pretty ridiculous place, even with the best efforts of those ridiculous FSF zealots. I don't always agree with them and their methods and communication skills aren't perfect, and it's a shame to see coreboot/libreboot get fragmented etc... but imagine how backwards the world would be without some people taking things 'a bit too far sometimes'.
Another difference is that Coreboot is essentially a rolling release, whereas Libreboot periodically takes a snapshot of upstream and maintains it for a while. Libreboot is therefore something like a long-term service release.
Anecdotally, I also found Libreboot easier to build. There is less configuration involved.
> The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim, with evidence and its own citations.
I'm not well read on this topic but I would like to be. I've never heard this solution presented, likely due to my lack of research. Can you provide citations of this solution being suggested and/or implemented?
Besides that, while I agree it is better than pure blocking I still feel it would be a government over-reach. I wouldn't like a company doing it either.
We call a standard work day 8 even though it isn't exactly 8. If indeed the idea was to shift a standard work day from approximately 8 hours to approximately 6 hours, it seems reasonable to refer to it as the "6-hour work day". (I haven't read the report, so won't comment on whether that was indeed the focus, as opposed to a more flexible 30-hour week.)
Everywhere i've worked that has actually cared about hours meant 8 when they said 8. My current job (as stupid as I think it is) requires me to be at work and not on lunch for 8 hours a day.
And truthfully, it is going to depend on the person to at least some extent as well.
IMO, anything that doesn't include being at work as part of your actual job duties should have no number of required work hours. You either get enough work done or you don't. If you aren't getting the expected amount of work done, then you'll eventually get fired. If you can out perform everyone else on the team and work 8 hours a week, so be it(just don't expect to get any brownie points when it comes raise time unless you put in more time).
Things like retail/food service are obviously things that require being at work certain hours so talking about shortening hours for that time of work is productive. For creative work/management/executive work though, I think we should move to a more flexible approach.
So here's a question that I continually ask myself as I work at my remote, salaried 6-hour-a-day developer job that I've been doing for the last year:
how do I know how much work is enough?
If I gauge by productivity, that's cool... I'll just be really fast and get my stuff done and then go play banjo or whatever.
But then when folks hand me a crufty WordPress site that is misbehaving and it could be anything between "visit the route that resets the route cache" and "debug three or four broken and unfamiliar JavaScript libraries and their interaction with terrible PHP code" there is a problem, because to my boss those could be the same amount of work.
When I am doing green field work, or working with very nice, clean technology that I understand well, it's easy enough for me to have expectations about how much to do, even (or perhaps especially) when I am dealing with a large, multi-month effort where there is a lot of fluidity in hitting specific goals.
But how do I say "oh, I worked enough today" if I don't have an hourly commitment? I agreed to a certain period of my time specifically because sometimes I look up and have worked 8-10 hours.
I'm the only programmer on my team, by the way, so there aren't a lot of metrics we can pull from about performance.
This is a real question I think about a lot, and I'd be happy for an answer: how do you set a workload expectation with no reference to how much effort or time I am expending when time estimation is difficult?
Absolutely. I don't fully understand workplace cultures (including my own) that claim to care more about "getting your work done" than "hours in a chair." The problem is that output is in many cases a very crude measure of effort. And not just because some people are vastly more productive than others, but also because it's often the case that when reading a bug report, you don't know if the fix will take 3 or 3000 lines of code until it's actually done.
Of course, over time your output averages out, and if you work about as hard as someone at about your skill level you'll have similar outcomes. This works ok for yardsticking at engineer-heavy organizations. Doesn't solve the problem for a solo developer like you though.
Good points... It all depends on who sets the milestones for "getting the work done".
If a sales guy commit more features to the customers than reasonable, do you need to put in more hours to "getting the work done"? Does he need to stick around late till your are done to penalize him also? If a sales guy doesn't make a sale as aniticipated does he need to stick around until he makes a sale and "gets his work done"?
I started out as an hourly contractor doing projects for a really good salesperson, and then she bought all my time that I cared to sell (about 30 hours a week), and then we formalized it as a w2 position about 10 months ago.
It's a very small company with doing web dev projects; there's only the boss (who pretty much just does sales), the "Design Dept. Head" out in SF, the "Chief Project Manager" in Az, and me (I'm an hour outside of Austin), plus a couple of off and on freelancers.
TBH, the expectation is mostly that "we get stuff done"; for example I had to meet with a client for a sub-contracted NSF gig on our NYE holiday. Or I have had to fix broken stuff in the middle of the night/ work late to make some magic happen occasionally. That has been rare enough so that, like the once or twice a year I have to travel, it's novel and kind of fun.
But between the limited sales pipeline, higher-margin clientele, and being fairly efficient the formal office hours that I agreed to are easy to maintain.
I play a lot of music, and I suspect that it's very much like being in a successful band would be like (I wouldn't know specifically what that is like, though, I only gig on the weekends at bars).
When I was in sales/marketing, it was all about hitting your quota. If you were good, your boss didn't care what you were doing as long as you hit your quota every month. It gave the higher performers the leeway to work when they wanted to, and also give an incentive to the average sales people to up their game to be able to do the same.
As a developer, a majority of the companies I worked at there was no incentive to go above and beyond, even at the end of the year in terms of bonuses. Sure, the guy that was burning himself out for that extra 1% yearly raise usually got it, but it never made any sense to me to work that hard for a few more pennies over the year.
Now in my 30's, my attitude is to get my stuff done and stay off my managers radar. My sanity and work/life balance is too important at this point in my life.
your boss didn't care what you were doing as long as you hit your quota every month
Where I work (software/hardware for research) the basic principle is actually not different: boss doesn't really care what I'm doing as long as I'm not unhappy and the stuff which needs to get done gets done in time. Sure there are no fixed periodic deadlines or money-based quota, but the same principle nonetheless. I wouldn't want to work in another way because of all the freedom it gives you. I do see the same 'drawback' regarding carreer opportunities etc but the older I get the less I care. I earn enough money to sustain my lifestyle so yeah I'm definitely not going to work my ass off just to earn a bit more or get a better position, as I know that won't make me any happier anyway.
At least part of most people's job is being available, however. If you work on a team or are even nominally in a support role, you've got to be available for questions, meetings, collaboration, and so on. Very few people at places I've worked in the past have a job that can be easily defined by "I cranked this many widgets, now I can go."
Additionally, the 40 hour week protects people who got a difficult task from being held over. I realize there are stories of working 80 hours a week, but in my experience most people leave at 40 hours, which forces managers and sales people to set realistic delivery dates based on those hours.
I understand the concept of being "available" because my employer has a rule of core hours that one can be expected to be available for questions/meetings/whatever.
At the same time though, sometimes you can learn a lot by not being available. There's documentation that can be written, and sometimes users need to actually read the manual instead of interrupting you to answer a question you've already answered to them three times before.
Sigh. That last one is the worst. Especially if you've written documentation, pointed it out to them before, and been told "I don't have time to read that".
You may take the stance that we need less children due to overpopulation problems. Either way though, people having kids is what continues America's and humanity's existence.
This is the whole idea behind lower tax brackets for married couples and similar things. Making sure our population is at least being maintained and preferably growing.
In addition, if you dislike the large amount of kids that grow up in orphanages/bad homes things like this should allow people to have more time to take care of their kids during their first several weeks of life as well as potentially encourage more people to keep their kids instead of putting them up for adoption.
> This is the whole idea behind lower tax brackets for married couples and similar things.
I'm confused by that statement. From my experience, married couples pay more in taxes (in the US) than they would if each were single (and making the same amount).
Or am I misunderstanding, and you meant that there _should_ be lower taxes for married couples?
I was under the impression it was usually lower taxes (partially selection bias due to it being lower for myself). As the other commenter points it, it is complicated and sometimes lower/sometimes higher to file jointly.
Interestingly, the current tax structure somewhat encourages single income families.
Taxes for married filing jointly are usually lower than for married filing separately.
But taxes for married filing jointly are often higher than for two single filers. This is especially true for higher incomes.
As a really simple example, consider two people both with $100k in taxable income, after taking their standard deductions and personal exemptions, in 2016. As single filers they would pay $21036.75 each in taxes, for a total of $42073.50. If they were married filing jointly, they would pay $42985.50, which is more. That happens because while the first two bracket boundaries (10% to 15% and 15% to 25%) are twice as big for joint married filers as they are for single filers, after that the boundaries start to converge. At the very top, the 39.6% boundary starts at $415k for single filers and at ~$467k for married filers....
There are also nasty perverse incentives where if one member of a married couple has a high income the other one can't contribute to IRAs in ways they could if they were just filing as an individual filer.
You're right about the facts you said, but wrong about them contradicting the parent comment.
Filing as married benefits couples where only one person is pulling down an income, thus providing a subsidy for one parent to be a full-time parent but not for marriages in general.
GNUs is notoriously hard to figure out how to config (though once I got it configured I've never had to mess it up again) but is the primary email client for people who want to directly grab their email in emacs instead of using a third party email sync and then reading it in emacs.
ERC is built in, pretty good for IRC, very easy to use, and very configurable. There are other IRC clients as well.
There are RSS readers in emacs as well but I don't currently use them. I think elfeed is the cool one to use nowadays.
