You're right! All forecasters at the NWS are absolutely essential to accurate, timely forecasting. Why even a random bus crash may be enough to send the US hurdling headlong into 3rd world status.

Oh, and I have a tiger-repelling rock I'd like to sell you.

My bad. Thought you were responding to my comment instead of the AC (didn't see that post).

Advocating for stress reduction courses open to everyone is a "50s-level" sexist comment?

Dude, you're a fucking moron

He made a wrong statement according to you and your bias. You're correct that, when controlling for work preferences and time spent working, an overall earnings (not wage) gap of about 5% still persists nationally (in the US, for all jobs). That does not mean that that gap is representative of what Google is facing, either internally or with respect to legal concerns, and Damore could be completely correct in applying his statement to Google. You don't have access to Google's salary numbers, so you really don't know how accurate or inaccurate Damore's statement actually is.

You mean, kinda like observing a discrepancy in earnings, and asserting that that discrepancy must arise from discriminatory practices? Is that the kind of causal attribution from something only tied to a correlation you're talking about?

All of those points, with the possible exception of the last one, speak to differences in preference (incidentally the very first point you listed), which, again, is emphatically not the same thing as speaking about differences in suitability.

Now, I'll grant that you could read the last point as an explanation for the lack of women in Google based on a general limitation of women, if you think that Damore is speaking about jobs being generally high-stress at Google, but given that he follows that point up with an analysis on men who pursue high-status, "high stress" leadership roles, I think it's pretty clear that he was invoking neuroticism as an explanation for fewer women leaders at Google rather than using it to make a broader claim that women are "statistically less suitable for work at Google" in general.

Moreover, assuming that his claim about neuroticism is true -- which I myself find dubious (a wikipedia link about neuroticism in general is not a solid source in my book) -- Damore very clearly explains how to overcome that apparent limitation when he describes "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap," saying:

In other words, the only feasible point you've latched onto, given your particularly uncharitable reading -- your "smoking bazooka" -- is noted not as some intrinsic limitation inhibiting women from pursuing work at Google; rather, it's basically seen as an artificial obstacle that can -- and should -- be overcome in order to encourage more women to work in leadership roles at Google. In fact, Damore lauds Google for the work they've done thus far to encourage more women to seek higher status roles, since it's generally applicable and helpful to all Google employees.

For someone who's read the "whole awful thing multiple times by now," you consistently seem to miss pretty central points (or make up points that never existed to begin with). Either you simply read the words without actually comprehending them all those times, or you just now read the thing, cherry-picked a rather unimpressive "bazooka," and said to yourself, "Ah-ha! I finally found a quote. Nobody will ever think to put it into context!"

Taking your statement literally and using neo-Marxist logic, yes, it actually is better to make a bigoted statement against a whole gender than any specific races... well, non-White (or Asian) races, at least.

Regardless of whether you're making bigoted statements against women or men, both rank lower on the scale of the oppressed than several races. If you compare a given white or Asian woman against a given black man, for example, you'll find that, since white and Asian women earn more than black men (on average, in the US), the black man is totally justified in making a bigoted statement against the white or Asian woman, since the woman, in this case, is clearly more oppressive.

Bonus points for making a sexist statement against women with a conservative bent, since they're, y'know, literally Hitler and all. This is why nobody in the mainstream Left cared all that much when, say, Trevor Noah microagressed all those women in Texas.

Again, can you point to any place where Damore states that women are "statistically less suitable for work at Google"?

He said no such thing. What he did say, though, is that women generally embrace different traits than men, and that many work approaches should reflect those traits to encourage participation of women, but not all work approaches should (because the work doesn't lend itself toward those traits, desired collaboration being one example). In other words, there's no reason to artificially impede women from participating, but neither is there reason to impose incompatible standards on work to artificially entice women to enter a given position. Moreover, it's even worse when work is presented as being something it's not simply to entice women in order to meet a quota, since nobody (not the women or their co-workers) benefits at that point. The reason for differing amounts of women vs. men in specific jobs, then, does not arise from poor suitability, but rather differing motivations: women generally just have slightly different interests than men.

Again, as Damore stated over and over and over -- though this point is lost on the likes of people like you, since you refuse to actually RTFM -- this does not mean that women who tend toward more typically male traits (as applicable to particular types of work) should be stereotyped or otherwise prevented from embracing those traits and associated work; it just means that an overall disparity in women vs. men for some types of work is inevitable, if people are actually allowed to pursue what interests them personally.

Can you point to any part of Damore's "screed" where he asserts anything about "people of certain races" being "statistically less suitable for work at Google"? Any part at all (looking for an actual quotation, here)?

Know why you can't? The only times Damore even mentioned race were with respect to programs (for people already working at Google) that allow only those of specific non-white races to participate. He thought that that's not a great idea.

You, GameboyRMH, are a fucking liar

Well you certainly appealed to a few of the mods. Tell us again about all these "lowlifes." I mean, I'm assuming you have some firsthand knowledge of that.

You're right that there's nothing anti-capitalist about Google's move. Your quick character judgments, though, make it pretty evident that you're not applauding capitalism on display; you're applauding some guy you don't agree with receiving punishment... Just like an upstanding moral person would, I'm sure.

I don't think it was a dumbass move at all... Think about it. He comes across as someone fired for voicing his opinion -- an opinion held by a lot of people, perhaps the majority by this point. He'll be lauded by them, and he'll become the latest poster boy for an authoritarian Left gone too far. You'll see him on a number of talk shows/podcasts soon enough, and I doubt he'll have much difficulty getting a new engineering position somewhere else, if he even wants to stay in engineering.

Moreover, the firing was utterly predictable, as you say, but so was much of the coverage that's already occurred, and is yet to come. I think he's in a far better position now than he was at Google, and he probably knew that he'd attain that position, being the first high-level firing of this variety. I think he saw an opportunity and took it before someone else could. I don't see anything dumb about that at all.

Google was wrong to fire Mr. Damore, but the firing was completely predictable, even if Google didn't have much of political reason to do so (I mean, they probably did, but even viewed purely as a way to assuage external/internal concerns, the firing was justified). Really, Google had to fire Damore once the memo leaked in order to save face; otherwise they'd come across as condoning his political views, which of course they can't do for a variety of reasons, not all political.

Mr. Damore had to have known this, and he had to have known that somebody would leak his memo... it's too provocative for either those deadset against him or in agreement with him not to do so. Or perhaps he leaked it himself.

So why would Damore put himself in a position to be fired?

Think about the poll results. Those aren't just local to Slashdot; they reflect a general feeling permeating not just the U.S., but much of the Western world... and that feeling is growing and intensifying. Having his particular viewpoint, Damore was probably frustrated at Google, observed broader anti-Left sentiments, and decided to tap into the zeitgeist. Now he'll come across -- rightly so -- as someone punished for daring to speak his mind about diversity and individuality... to "speak truth to power" as it were. And people will predictably lap it up.

What comes next?

Well he'll probably get a wrongful termination settlement, since it was pretty evidently a retaliatory firing based on political views -- really, Google cannot come out of this looking good, so they'll be quick to settle. He'll also become a darling of more libertarian/right-leaning talk shows: expect to see him on the Rubin Report, possibly Sam Harris's "Waking Up" podcast, Rogan, and mentions on a number of other platforms (Sargon, Jordan Peterson, etc.). Who knows? He may be the next guy interviewed on Fox News to illustrate yet another example of the authoritarian Left gone too far. Moreover, whoever hires him next (assuming he wants to continue in software engineering) will come across as a company focused more on merit than political posturing, so there will be a PR boost for them (probably enough to more than offset any detraction), meaning that there are probably employers lining up for Damore -- if he hasn't been hired already.

The point is, there's actually a lot of upside for Damore's firing from Google, that upside is predictable, and I'm betting Damore predicted it. This doesn't mean that Damore's concerns are invalid; it just means that he's probably an opportunist who recognized a unique opportunity to be a first-mover of sorts. He's got the spotlight now, a largely sympathetic audience, and I doubt that the power that entails is lost on him.

Gotta love that unbiased, non-judgmental journalistic addition. I mean, of course Mr. Damore was in the wrong, right? How dare he internally reveal concerns for company direction... especially with wrong ideas.

By the way, all of you defending what he wrote, you're wrong too. Remember, everything is racist, everything is sexist.

I don't refute the equations you lifted from the blog; I generally don't accept blogs as a reputable source, though, and assumed that the thrust of that particular blog was going to be some MOND thing, since that appeared to be your direction.

My point stands, though: those equations show how NG approximates GR for specific circumstances. They do not show that NG scales beyond those circumstances, which a law should be able to do, nor do they correct wrong assumptions made by NG, such as gravity acting instantaneously.

Also, I agree that GR isn't the full answer -- it clearly isn't. GR is a better approximation than NG, but still an approximation, though we don't have a better one now. Experiments, like that in the article, have the potential to shed light on how to improve our approximations by showing where our current laws breakdown.

You seem to suggest that a breakdown of an existing law is just a misapplication, which it is not always the case. That was not the case with NG, by the way, since, as mentioned before, NG assumes propositions that are incorrect. You have yet to address that point and other point's I raised.

Were you posting to refute what I said, or to expand upon it? I think we are saying the same thing.

What? You mean some blog? Sooo reputable!

MOND theories have been proposed all over the place, but the trouble with them is that they don't fit all the observed data. Fit your MOND theory to the CMB, publish your paper in an actual journal, and then we'll talk.

Also, none of the math you posted actually addressed the issues I raised, you just posted a bunch of equations that show that the basics of Newtonian physics represent GR at non-relativistic scales (also known as an approximation). What, did you think I'd be so blown away by your ability to copy-paste equations that I'd concede the point? Fail.