With that approach, each call to ``make_window`` produces a distinct type, such that isinstance couldn't be used to compare two windows. That kind of breaks the idea of a "type", I think, as being a collection of values.
No, not proof by analogy, but explanation by analogy. As Scalzi says in his follow-up, providing proof of endemic sexism is about as necessary by now as providing evidence that gravity exists when tripping over one's shoelaces. The evidence by now is clear enough that to demand evidence in every discussion is a distraction tactic, and not actually useful. Finding evidence is, because of the sheer breadth and extent of the problem, as difficult as using your favorite search engine to look up income stats, harassment at the workplace, unfair hiring practices, etc., such that demanding evidence is pretty much asking someone else to do your work for them.
>[B]lack males receive [prison] sentences that are approximately 10% longer
I don't see how this is related to programming but yes it is correct. The effect is even larger for men/women, so that men recieve much longer sentences for the same thing than a woman would.
>The ratio of women’s and men’s median annual earnings was 77.0
This is mostly but not fully explained by choice of career. Women in the cities of US actually earn more than men.
I don't feel like responding to more, since they are unrelated to the topic at hand, proving discrimination in the workplace keeping women out of programming.
>providing proof of endemic sexism
It depends on what you define as sexism to be sure. If you define sexism as telling a woman she looks beautiful, or showing pretty women in your presentation, then yes of course you will find things like that.
>demand evidence in every discussion is a distraction tacti
Yeah, I guess it disctracts from reading poorly thought out analogies...
Correlation does not prove causation.
>if you still demand that someone else go search for things online for you.
Wow are being really hostile. I have made no such demands. But if you try to "prove" your point by doing analogies or by linking to irrelevant stats like incarceration of black males, I will call you out.
Krugman also backed his argument with data, notably the exact same data that Silver is disparaging by hiring people like Roger Pielke Jr. as staff writers. The data is in, and has been analyzed in a multitude of different ways: climate change is real. To ignore that is to ignore the role that expertise sometimes has to play in understanding and interpreting data.
While it's superficially true that this expertise can be used to enshrine unscientific dogmas in the trappings of science, to reject expertise period is to reject the role that knowledge can and must play in forming an understanding of our world. Data do not exist in a vacuum, but are collected in actual experiments, the complexities of which must be understood to gain insight from that data in a way that reflects reality. Not being wary of (or even intentionally misconstruing) how data is collected and represented leads to mistakes like normalizing away trends, then claiming those trends don't exist; this is precisely what Pielke Jr. did, and what Krugman was criticizing.
In a way, things like this are a part of the whole bloody point that opponents of the NSA have been making: if you put that much surveillance power into the hands of a relatively small number of humans, then they will abuse it. These sort of incidents reveal through their pettiness some of the ways in which massive surveillance invites abuse.
I agree with you, but I'd have hoped the outrageous shit happening now would be enough to break the two-party dynamic, but I'm rather doubting it, having seen that the reactions are defined by the media in an entirely two-party manner. I think if anything from the NSA leaks changes this dynamic, it will be the exodus of technology dollars from the US.
I'm not a doctor, and I cannot speak for the ethical standards that doctors hold themselves to. I understand only that they are stringent. Quite possibly, I am on the wrong side here as far as doctors are concerned.
However, to me, the methods of coercion are entirely relevant here, and make all the difference. From what these doctors weren't holding lengthened sentences or reduced meal quality over these women... I would describe it more as "convincing" than "coercing". Perhaps they were too persistent in seeking approval, but that is something that is subject to individual interpretation.
Regardless, even if what they were doing was clearly deplorable coercion, the headline is clearly misleading. I went from "What century is this!?!" to "eeeh..." in record time...
Given the history of forced sterilization in California, I think it's clear that at least some doctors do not hold themselves to a high ethical standard at all, but in fact, a quite low one. Pressuring an inmate or even offering if they are in labor a tubual ligation is now illegal as a result of that history:
"Since then, it's been illegal to pressure anyone to be sterilized or ask for consent during labor or childbirth."
Moreover, it has been documented in the article that at least some of the "approval" was given while patients were under sedation, which cannot be taken as approval in any ethical way, given the nature of the procedure. That is basically enough for an unethical doctor to cover his or her ass, but it is not appropriate for a journalist to refer to that as approval.
At any rate, it's good that you're asking why this is going on in this century. Just a shame you seem to be concern trolling about a very valid headline instead of addressing the issue at hand.
You got an accurate headline: approval was not obtained. You cannot call drugged up statements approval. You're trying to split a hair that isn't there, about what kinds of coerced approval can be counted as approval and what kinds can't. By doing so, you're ignoring that the prison medical staff abused positions of authority and abused drugs even to obtain consent for permanent medical procedures.
What you're arguing is much like arguing that if a woman had sex while drunk (under the influence of a drug that impedes judgement), then no headline should call it rape. In that context, the error should, I hope, be quite clear.
If the controversy here is limited to the times that doctors pressured sedated patients, then the article does not make that clear. It sounds like they are talking about doctors doing this in the more general case.
"What you're arguing is much like arguing that if a woman had sex while drunk (under the influence of a drug that impedes judgement), then no headline should call it rape."
HELL NO what I am arguing is not like that. I am not okay with doctors pressuring drugged up patients. As I said: "If they were getting approval after drugging up their patients or while their patients were in labor then that is clearly an issue"
Holy hell... Do try to be more careful when you accuse somebody of being like a rape apologist...
The headline matches only a subset of the articles content. A subset that it mentions only very briefly, almost as an aside. That particular incident was clear coercion, but if the other incidents involved similar coercion then the article fails to say so.
Instead the article focuses on the failure of the doctors to seek state approval. It is a poor headline.
Given that they have unilateral control as to what can be installed on non-jailbroken devices, that's rather a cop-out. Apple does have a complete monopoly on content that can be purchased for use with iOS devices. If you don't like B&N's policies, you can very often find another retailer with better policies, but this is not at all the case if you are looking for software compatible with iOS.
So? Accusing Apple having a monopoly on iOS contents regulation is like complaining Honda having a monopoly on Civic's engine parts (Yes, there are after-market parts, and yes, those WILL void any factory warranty). They make their own devices and they can decide however they want to regular its hardware/software/ecosystem, but they don't have a monopoly on mobile electronics so you are free to choose any alternatives.
Calling a company having a monopoly over their own product is simply silly.