As a society you can make it illegal to discriminate on factors that a person has no control over.
BRB, making it illegal to discriminate between dates based on physical appearance.
Readit NewsDeleted Comment
Dead Comment
I'd say any sort of reusable booster is technical innovation. They had test payloads. And no one is apologizing for anyone.
I'm sorry, it's not technical innovation. If someone invents a horse and carriage when the automobile is already in existence, the horse and carriage is not innovation. The poster who has been downvoted out of existence is correct.
The article glosses over what kind of rocket this is, so it's worth pointing out that New Shepherd is a suborbital booster. You can't launch satellites with it, only go up and fall back down.
Still cool though!
ADDENDUM - if you want to keep an eye on other projects, their reusable orbital booster is New Glenn. IIRC it's higher capacity than Falcon 9, maybe more toward Falcon Heavy. Last I heard they're shooting for a first test launch in 2020.
New Glenn is not higher capacity than anything, it has never reached orbit.
Dead Comment
rich-and-poor commented on What I Learned Working for Steve Ballmer medium.com/@benbob/what-i... · Posted by u/dbattaglia
What does it mean to connect with their community? What should Microsoft have done? Be specific.
rich-and-poor commented on A new $100M fund for women founders of color techcrunch.com/2018/07/07... · Posted by u/ss2003
The idea is that they were already broken up and artifically made uneven, so the point here is to go in reverse and as you said "even them out"
I'd be interested in alternative solutions - what would you suggest? Keep in mind that not doing anything doesn't seem to fix these things.
> alternative solutions
I'll give it a go. I first want to say something about the worldview required to do this sort of racial discrimination.
There is no way of quantifying the relative advantages and disadvantages between identity groups. How much is one group oppressed over another? Suppose that a simple tax would suffice to even things out, exactly how much should that tax be? There is no way of knowing precisely what that tax should be. Our attempts to define oppression are never going to be rigorous. They'll always be vague, which I believe is dangerous, since it will be enforced by some large bureaucracy. We need definition, but there will never be definition accurate enough. Feel free to argue me on this, but I don't see how you can do it.
Second, in separating people into these identity groups, you deny my individuality. Every time I speak, I speak as a member of my group, for my group. My actions are actions of and for my group, as well. With the world view taken here, I cannot speak or act without the presupposition that I'm doing it as a move in a power game between my identity group and other identity groups. Should we accept that a person's ethnicity and gender must always qualify their speech and actions?
I agree that in conversation, one can observe the race and gender of the other person - but the merit of their words is still paramount. You may know that a book author is from Spain or Russia, but that does not affect how you read the book. However, in the worldview in which a racially discriminatory VC fund is socially acceptable, people are defined as members of groups among other groups, constantly vying for power and oppressing one another.
Notice I'm not really going after the racially-discriminatory VC fund itself. I'm explaining the worldview in which the fund was conceived, and in which it is socially acceptable. It boils North America down from a melting pot of ambitious individuals trying to do great things with each other, into identity groups that are constantly holding power over, and suffering under the tyranny of, other identity groups. Obviously, the dominant narrative here is that white males are oppressing women of color founders. But you have no idea about the individual biases of the white males you're decrying. And you also have no idea whether or not they achieved funded status based on their competence. Yet you still assume the system is broken, and you still rob them of their individuality, still knowing nothing of their biases and nothing of their competence.
> Keep in mind that not doing anything doesn't seem to fix these things.
Why must we do something? Where is the evidence that people are not choosing to be founders of their free will? How can you be sure that the lack of founder diversity is evidence of a flaw in the system? I say that the system is operating in a very healthy manner.
Efforts to move power to the disadvantaged that disregard individuality has had tragic, deadly results in history (China, Vietnam, USSR).
rich-and-poor commented on A new $100M fund for women founders of color techcrunch.com/2018/07/07... · Posted by u/ss2003
Sure, nobody enjoys seeing their relative privilege diminish.
It's interesting how shameless you are about your blatant racism.
I wonder why it is that car insurance charges higher rates to young males(who on average cost more than young females), but medical insurance as far as I can tell is equally priced for young men and young women, even though young women generally have higher health care costs than young men(primarily through childbirth and greater use of health services).
I don't want to be cynical but I imagine if a health care company in the US or Canada actually did start charging more for some class of young women vs young men, it would make international news and lead to new anti-discrimination laws for health insurance