I implied that when a nation decides that transport infrastructure is a strategic investment, a decades long initiative, funded by the Public sector, it yields better results.
The private sector unfortunately is too short sighted, and will optimize for profit. Doesn't seem to work well for nationwide infrastructure..that being railroads, but also the internet.
- non-legally speaking, consent for anything is never illimited in time. So whatever the law says, you're probably doing a dick move, I'm sure you can conceive that most people you're going to email would rather not get this email and you're planning to do it anyway. So if you act against these people's interest, don't be surprised if they react negatively (reporting the email as spam, complaining, reporting you to authorities)
- legally speaking... IANAL, but I don't think that you're correct that you have a legal basis to have kept this data, and even less to use it for marketing purposes. I don't think that you'd win the argument that the consent is still "informed" after many years of not hearing from you. If a reasonable person would no longer expect to hear from this company, then I don't think you still have consent under GDPR (could be wrong, IANAL)
So basically — you are affirming the point of the OP whose article was shared.
Wait too long — respect people’s attention and time so much that you don’t send them anything unless it is ready and benefits them - and apparently it’s spam when you finally do contact them. Meanwhile, if you were just drip feeding them slop once a month, then you’re fine.
I happen to agree with the article author, the email ecosystem is totally broken, that’s far more of a problem than small teams who have well-meaning intentions and respect for their users’ time. You’re blaming the victim, rather than the email system that’s open to SPAM and dominated by gmail.
That's a shallow analysis. These reasons (which are very reasonable) aren't inherently gendered, yet don't seem to deter women as they make up something like 80-90% of these jobs, they're not "just not interested".
So... seems like gender _does_ have something to do with that? Maybe just maybe more women gravitate towards these roles because these roles are associated with traditionally-feminine values (care, empathy, nurture)?
Maybe you're "just not interested" because as a man, you've been educated with traditionally-masculine values (strength? protection? power?), and if you had grown up in an environment where these roles are associated to these values, you'd be potentially-interested in them despite their obvious downsides
Men are also often the primary breadwinners in families, so they feel the need to take a higher paying job. In families where the husband's job pays well, the wife's career can be decided by personal fulfillment. Teachers are respected (but not paid well), nurses are respected and can earn a good amount, and social work is a very self-fulfilling role (I don't think society holds them in esteem more than other professionals).
If we want men to take up certain roles, we need to pay more. That's the simplicity of capitalism and free markets. We bend ourselves into knots trying to find clever and (maybe) cheaper solutions to thorny problems.
> If we want men to take up certain roles, we need to pay more.
Why is it only now, when employment rates are seemingly a problem for men, that we need to pay more in these professions to attract men that might otherwise not have considered them? Why shouldn't we have paid more earlier?
The framing of the article and discussion around it is a little bizarre to me because it ignores the decades or longer of (American) society effectively pushing women into industries like education or nursing and subsequently devaluing them.
I don't quite understand why society has to step in and try to fix this for men who are feeling insecure about their job options while simultaneously actively avoiding trying to help women and minorities.
I don't think you should be downvoted: the article talks about this (kind of). It says there's a need of "framing jobs as more masculine" by eg emphasizing the physicality of them: making job names more masculine is totally in line with this (whether this "masculinisation" is the right solution is very debatable of course)
Congrats on not reading the article I guess? It explicitly points out "the lopsidedness was driven by huge growth in health care, where women hold nearly 80% of jobs". Healthcare has always been women-heavy, this article [1] corroborates the 80% figure of the article. Nothing to do with positive action.
I suspected that within healthcare, women tend to occupy the lower-qualification roles more than the higher-qualification. This article [2] seems to confirm that: women are large majority in roles like nursing, hygienist, technologist but only occupy 44% of physician roles.
So... yeah sounds like despite women getting most new jobs, they're not exactly privileged, just lucky to be in a growing industry.
Amongst others reasons, one of the reasons for clean code is that it avoids bugs. AIs producing dirty code are producing more bugs, like humans. AIs iterating on dirty code are producing more bugs, like humans.
I personally find it to be perfectly readable. I've heard of people with issues with white text on a black background, but I don't fully understand it. Do you have astigmatism?
yeah same. It gives me a bit of a halo effect on letters, making it much harder to read (even w glasses). My astigmatism is pretty light and I wear glasses but it's still difficult to read for me
While I think it's an opinion that's somewhat valid and I wouldn't really blame anyone for consuming art this way, it's definitely missing a lot of what art can be about.
A piece of art is not a self-contained thing, the end result isn't where all (or even most) of the interest resides. The intent of the artist, the point they're making, the history that led to it, the references it makes and why, the choices and decisions taken in making it... that's all inherent part of the art and a huge part of why people might enjoy a piece of art or not.
For example, if I listen to some progressive rock, I might enjoy it for how a fellow human managed to identify and break some rules of traditional songwriting, for their expertise in musical theory, for the references they chose to make to other bands/songs/genres... If I learn it's AI-generated, the song itself hasn't changed but there's no point in it anymore, my enjoyment was directly coming from the fact that it was made by a human: if it's a machine I'll just shrug and say "yeah sure everyone knows machines can do that". Entire genres like punk or grunge make zero sense if not human-made.
For a more extreme example: a piece of contemporary art often has very little point in itself. The art is in the artist's process (their point of view, intent, history, etc), not the piece. If a piece is AI-generated, there's literally zero interest in it (except maybe as commentary on AI itself, fine).
> what you do is you _listen to it_ and you _fucking enjoy it_. This knee-jerk disgust reaction of "ugh I worry that it's AI" has no place in your heart in that moment
I suggest being a lot more humble about your understanding of art and other people's relationship to it
> a piece of contemporary art often has very little point in itself. The art is in the artist's process (their point of view, intent, history, etc), not the piece.
I personally find no enjoyment in art where I have to have context for it to be "interesting". Either it is or it isn't interesting on it's own merits. I find all art the same though. If it isn't interesting on it's own, then it's not interesting on the whole (for me).
reply