Interesting website. I was rather shocked by the Woman King entry - I knew that historical films like to take liberties, but did not think they had the audacity to completely reverse the roles of heroes and villains, or in that case, the pro- and anti-slavery sides.
> I think these diversity efforts are doing the exact opposite of what they intend to do.
They intend to neuter any opposition by ensuring every organization is riddled with politically-approved agents.
Prove you don't discriminate by having a chief diversity officer, then that officer makes sure only the like-minded can get/keep jobs. It is after all their job description - the not like-minded contribute to a "hostile atmosphere".
Username is Starcraft2 reference, loosely inspired by some uThermal build that was mis-referenced by Harstem and maybe misremembered by me as "the repairman build".
Thankfully I never had any safety incidents. But nothing I was doing was safe work while under the effects of sleep deprivation. We had a dozen different ways to kill people directly and hundreds of things could go wrong to kill people in more Rube Goldberg fashions. I was unhappy with the work environment so I left.
Some of those include:
- A 3 mile long cable under +/- 10,000 lbs of tension
- A powerful neutron generator that can be started with two button clicks on a windows desktop
- Little radioactive source materials like the one that was lost in Brazil[0]
- High voltage & current electricity
- Shaped charges[1] (these are really only used in military and oil wells AFAIK)
...Dare I ask what in Sam Hill a high energy neutron source was required for in terms of working with oil rigs and such?
Wasn't aware of any applicability in that space, but freely admit I've not spent many cycles on contemplating the issue. Like I guess being a fundamental part of some diagnostic or sensor gear maybe... but neutrons sources? Gamma I might could understand. Neutrons're just good for making shit hard to dispose of I thought.
The cable would legit give me nightmares though.
If you're not at liberty to say, that's fine, but man. I gotcha.
It is common to use DD neutron generators in oil exploration. You measure the backscattered neutrons to measure density, or something (I used a DD neutron generators manufactured by Schlumberger to characterize particle detectors in grad school... And I also know that they are used to measure density on glacial firn... Not sure exactly what they're used for in oil wells though).
States agreed to some written terms, limiting their own sovereignty, to join a union. That union then ignores terms it dislikes. States try to enforce those terms, but suddenly the union changes tune, finds that enforcing (some) terms actually is important, and stops those states.
But preventing laws from changing from city to city is the real tragedy.
Sp, 2 wrongs make a right? From what I remember, immigration is federal jurisdiction and not state. States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws and the supreme court judgement agrees with that viewpoint.
And you are talking about the same state that asked the rangers to push people into the Rio and not to give water to the immigrants? At some point, you would think those are your fellow people.
Preventing laws from being humane is the real tragedy.
> States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws
Think that over - states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age [1], transgender bathroom access [2], or not hiring enough minority-owned tunneling companies [3].
Only when it comes to enforcing federal laws that the federal government would rather not see enforced, do suddenly issues of standing and federal jurisdiction appear - as if states have no interest in who enters their territory.
States and their populations direct how the federal government should act by passing laws. That government then ignores those laws at their leisure, and prevents the states from enforcing them. Doesn't that sound a bit undemocratic to you? Though that accusation seems to be levied only when convenient, with little relation to its meaning.
>states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age
100% yes. This was the explicit opinion of several founders, to the point of publicly stating that any provision for any sort of "exit" of the union makes it entirely pointless. The constitution forever bound us, purposely, intentionally, and with an explicit supremacy clause that makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.
We are NOT a federation, were never meant to be, and there is no honest reading of the constitution within context that comes up with such a claim.
This was done because the Articles of Confederation was such an abysmal failure that left the country weak, bickering, and basically a bunch of small kingdoms of governors refusing to interact in ways that benefited the country as a whole. We tried the "weak, small, limited federal government that lets the states do mostly their own thing" and the result was very nearly the end of the country in its infancy. The constitution was entirely "Sign this and we be strong together, or we are re-conquered in twenty years when europe gets it's shit together"
> makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.
And when the federal government ignores the likewise federal laws binding it and directing its actions? In any other situation, if the executive branch ignores the legislative or judicial ones, it's called fascism.
The system is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. The undemocratic elements you're referring to are just that - the republic. If the federal government were to capitulate to the states, there would be no republic. They tried that with the Articles of Confederation, the US's first government. You need a strong federal government with its own set of rules. Home rule must be limited to some extent to allow for people to work together. I think in this case for Texas, they've squeezed home rule too hard, but that is always going to be a balancing act.
Also, as an aside, I find it very interesting you mentioned transgender people, but not gay people in that bathroom example - the ban was on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination of all forms, why did you choose to single one particular kind out?
The anglosphere, not the world. I assure you there are many parts of the world not set up for people like you. I live in one of them. We don't feel guilty about building our corner of the world for our own benefit. But we also don't see our home country as a mere economic platform open for everyone.
> The anglosphere, not the world. I assure you there are many parts of the world not set up for people like you.
My phrasing was sloppy. I meant the scientific world in which I operate, not the entire scientific world, and certainly not the literal entire globe.
> I live in one of them. We don't feel guilty about building our corner of the world for our own benefit. But we also don't see our home country as a mere economic platform open for everyone.
I'm not sure if that's a general statement of fact or a response to something I said, but, if I appeared to imply that you should feel guilty or that your home country should be a mere economic platform, then I did not mean to do so, and I apologize.
You have nothing to apologize for, at least not to me. I just wanted to highlight what usually gets forgotten in these self-flagellating discussions - people like me who learn English as a second language to participate in the anglosphere have countries of our own, where our culture and language is the norm. English grants us access to an additional world.
That we have to do the bare minimum and learn English to access the anglosphere (or global scientific publishing, where if it wasn't English then it would be French or Latin or some other common language, and the issues would be the same) is not something you should spend an ounce of guilt, or even limited awareness, on.
And it is downright perverse that the fantastic scientific accomplishments, that drew the global scientific community to learn English to access them, get re-cast as "the world built for you", as some kind of unearned privilege.
> humans don't vary that much. Compare with some other species (dogs are often used) where there is a wide range of size, intelligence, and any kind of thing humans might have bred dogs to do.
How does human genetic variation compare to e.g. different wild canine (sub)species, such as coyotes, red wolves, gray wolves, etc.?
So you want to include a group by getting rid of activities they are not good at?
Sounds as good as getting rid of jobs that are mostly done by one gender to foster inclusiveness...
