Australia and Japan and a number of Asia-Pacific nations have joined the CPTPP - the reality is that the main driving force has been a mission to build a trading coalition in which the participating states can extricate themselves (and the supply chains of their businesses) from what has become a dependency on cheap Chinese goods/manufacture. Hot take - embracing the trans-pacific partnership is the best thing we can do to contain the rising influence and ambitions of Xi Jinping's China.
Indeed you can't trade with a partner who uses trade as a weapon - it does occur to me that china thinks the same of the US. We're just the smaller monkey getting hit down the line.
You're absolutely right. The thing America most needs to do is open her borders to truly free trade with the world, with the exception of Red China and a few other nations we want to topple. More than that, we need to build free trade areas (of which we are a part) in those areas, strengthening them further against her influence. We need everyone else on our side and that's a great way to make progress towards that goal.
This makes the second or third piece I've read this week to suggest that the populism we're seeing behind Brexit and the Trump phenomenon is at some level motivated by a desire to actually cause the harm seems so obvious to experts and the chattering classes. Mind you this guy added a new twist that this destructive intent might not have been a conscious.
Just to spell it out, this articles answer to the question posited in it's title is that maybe Brexit was an unconscious act of economic sabotage.
Seriously? Is that where we're at?
If people want to make sense of the populism surrounding Brexit or Trump, the first step is to stop making up bullshit and accept these many voters and activists are sincere, genuine and motivated by the hope of something better.
I think the reason that people don't get this, is because they inhabit an intellectual and an informational world where all those harms mentioned in the article are just freaking obvious.
So, in the UK, the US, and even in Australia we're witnessing these populisms that invite the connections everyone is making, they express the same fears, the same distrust of institutions and expertise, they share the same race-inflected dimension, and belief that Islam is a threat. They even share the same climate denialism, which is curious.
Now, while it may not sound as creative or cool as the masses unconsciously taking down the system. But it's worth mentioning that in Australia, the UK and in the US, our news media is characterised by the dominating reach and profound influence of News Limited / Fox News. Being the news outlet who's reputation is synonymous with its message on those same very fears and issues.
But that's just a coincidence right? No, we don't talk about that. It's not like a divorce between democracy and science, expertise and truth is something we should be worried about.
Yeah, my bad. Brexit was totally an act of unconsciously self-destructive class warfare, that makes much more sense for us to be talking about. That's some next level jungian collective unconscious shit right there.
So, has it completely escaped the attention of the makers of mobile games that almost 60% of gamers on mobile platforms are women? Seriously - It's kinda odd that one of the defining characteristics of the mobile gaming market doesn't actually seem to be reflected in what the industry is releasing.
It's one hell of an omission, and actually, there's got to have been a lot of opportunity missed.
And the icing on that cake? On mobile, female gamers are actually way more loyal players (42% higher 7-day retention on average versus males), they also spend about 35% more time in gaming appss, oh and they're also spending around 31% more on In-App-Purchases than their male counterparts too.
For all the hyperbolae of the headline, this article reeks of sour grapes and conjecture, if not outright paranoia.
In complete ignorance of exactly what qualities the company was selecting for in finding the best fit, he simply assumes that his claim to superior qualifications means some manner of reverse sexism was at play. He can claim all the liberal credentials he wants, but it's difficult not to read this as a minor tantrum... Even assuming his claim to superior qualifications (and that's quite the claim to make without access to another individuals resume and academic results, etc) this whole article reads like the misdirected frustrations of a wounded ego.
For one thing it's a dumbass approach to human resources to favour only those candidates who possess superior qualifications, and its one that I'm pretty sure has generally lost its currency. Any enterprise with a vacancy is not only looking for a puzzle piece who's competent to perform the designated tasks of a role, but someone who fits in the culture of the company, and there are always candidates who's work history and experience shines for reasons besides formal qualifications.
I just find this whole article objectionable. That a company has made a public commitment to diversity doesn't mean that the author and his friend failed to be interviewed because of their penises. Clearly they both have high opinions of themselves, but claiming discrimination just because a woman got the job and some vague notion that the hiring company "endorsed" a youtube video (really what?), well it smacks of pettiness and a complete ignorance of the thinking that goes into hiring decisions.
No matter the heights of the authors disbelief or his wounded pride in not even being interviewed, hiring the right person can be a dark art and just because it escapes this writers comprehension that a particular woman was favoured over him, is no kind of argument that discrimination was at play.
This kind of backlash is exactly why I decided it had to be posted anonymously.
The last thing I need right now is my real world identity being tied to a perspective strongly associated with the bigoted political right, especially in a field dominated by strong views in the opposite direction.
I understand your skepticism of my account. You only have my word to go on.
But let me ask you this. Assume for the moment I relayed the details accurately. If that happened to you, wouldn't you feel frustrated?
> But let me ask you this. Assume for the moment I relayed the details accurately. If that happened to you, wouldn't you feel frustrated?
I am always frustrated if I don't get a job I apply for.
I don't go on to assume that there are sexist reasons why I didn't get the job.
Look at all the other jobs you haven't got, and the people who did get them. How many of those people are "not particularly impressive", or have "less education" or "work history was less impressive. Fewer accomplishments at less notable companies."?
I had to walk away from my keyboard because your comment made me so angry.
You claim to want to help women, and yet the first time you think you might have been discriminated against your reaction is to write a blog post urging companies to avoid employing women so that better-qualified, better-experienced, you could get that job?
Why does this have any votes? The talk clearly isn't banned or unavailable - that's a ridiculous and hyperbolic claim. It's a TEDx talk, which are independent events where speakers are not in fact vetted by TED. Meanwhile TED can and does have a say on the content hosted under its own banner.
They made the decision not to do so with this talk because the Sheldrake's talk is premised on a number of false assumptions about the way science operates, and for the factual errors relied upon in the talk.
Thanks for the post! I didn't know such conversation existed. Diving into it to learn some more stuff.
This post is relevant because Sheldrake's talk on Ted was banned from Ted. You can still find it on Youtube though. Many people find it absurd, as do I.
By their very nature blog articles like this are reaching an audience of non-coders, to show them that a basic understanding of programming is within their grasp, that it's a worthwhile intellectual exercise, and yes, that there IS fun to he had in the endeavour.
Blog articles like these are not prospectuses for Computer Science courses, they are not meant to be a sombre accounts of the travails to be had in professional programming life. And your profession is no more devalued by their existence than Electrical Engineering is somehow devalued by those kits for children to make their own rudimentary electrical circuits.
And just the same, these kinds of articles have an educational function, especially when it comes lowering the perceived barrier for entry for lay people to understand some of the fundaments of how software works - and this includes young minds who may well choose it for a career.
I'm one of those ordinary people who read these kinds of articles and was motivated into action. And I was profoundly embarrassed at how long it took me to make my first to-do app. It didn't come natural to me, and I cracked the shits and banged the table at how I overlooked the one character typo that was screwing it up. But you know what? Finishing it was actually "fun" and it was "rewarding".
I'll leave it to you to guess whether my stumbled first steps into n00b level code have meant that your craft and your profession is now diminished in my mind, or elevated.
In a world where software is all pervasive, there's nothing to be served in encouraging popular ignorance. And I'm sure there's more to be gained for your profession as a whole if the wider world was just a little more literate about what you do.
Fair enough, and I agree with the other examples in the thread of why "programming is fun" literature has a positive effect, but it also has a very strong effect on people unlike us who aren't motivated by it and aren't ever going to be inspired to learn it, but are going to use it as ammunition. From a lot of my experience, that's the principal that a lot of business management is built on.
> By their very nature blog articles like this are reaching an audience of non-coders
are they? I always got the feeling it's preaching to the choir - those posts are popular on hn and so, and nowhere else. I don't know a single programmer who had to get convinced into programming by some random post. it's like you can't force someone into becoming an artist.
Sorry, I have to ask why it is you're disinclined to pay the subscription fee for content libraries like spotify, or an audiobook collection of some sort?
It's just that for me, Spotify has actually changed how I consume music, displacing the piratic tendencies of my past. And now, having ready access to this monumental archive of human musical output, wherever I go... that's something I've really come to value. And seriously, in the scale of what things cost in the world, the fee's peanuts! I'd be perfectly happy with forking over double the current charge.
So, we've both obviously take different mental turns along the road - that's why I'm curious to hear your take.
Sure. So a good amount of the music I listen to isn't on Spotify, maybe 20% or something like that. But, I understand most of that will never make it there because the music is free. From what I understand, free music (official mixtapes, deluxe edition albums, remixes etc.) can't exactly be on Spotify because all the music is being monetized. Also, I still use my 80gb iPod classic on a daily basis.
I would definitely upgrade regardless of that 20% if a) if it was feasible for me and b) I had a slightly beefier smartphone, more so because mine has a shorter battery life than I'd like.
