biggerbistro

Bitcoin won't free people who won't lift a finger to learn it just like the US constitution won't protect people unwilling to defend it. I've yet to meet someone who is unable to understand the basic use of bitcoin (sending and receiving) and if we are trying to cater to the lowest common denominator we have already lost. It is worrying that we have resorted to scrapping a new technology just because lazy or incompetent people are unable to completely master it.

How is this elitist? Do most people understand the current financial system in any meaningful way?

Do most people understand how their computers work? How their air conditioner works? How about the pressure dynamics that make their toilets flush?

Saying everyone can't mine it is inaccurate, everyone can mine it even with a smartphone. Is it profitable? No, but neither is mining iron ore with a shovel. Those with the knowledge and capital to fully utilize any system will always have an edge over those who don't, in what reality is this not the case?

I'm curious as to why you don't think diversity programs are not exactly that: discrimination programs. Enforcing quotas assumes (usually incorrectly) that there is an equal supply of talent within the underrepresented minority group and that it is simply bias on the part of the hiring managers that prevents equal numbers of blacks/women/hispanics/whatever from being hired. Putting pressure on companies for not having more minority representation is being discriminatory against (usually) white males, as there are limited spots available at a given company.

If you start with the potentially incorrect assumption that your hiring practices are biased in favor of one group over another then doesn't it make more sense to address this bias directly rather than enforcing quotas? Having your hiring process audited and getting rid of any bad weeds seems like a good start. I've seen firsthand manager who have said outright "we can't hire him, we need to hire a woman this time" after interviewing what seemed to be a good candidate.

Is that not what a diversity program amounts to? If the candidate was superior on merit alone then market forces would reward those companies that ignored race and gender in their hiring decisions and punish the racist/sexist ones that were passing up perfectly good candidates. If all existing companies are racist/sexist then the potential entrepreneur that starts a competitor and scoops up all the "ignored talent" would make a killing.

Perhaps instead of whining about gender ratios we should be the change we want to see while making a ton of money at the same time?

How about female coal miners? Female construction workers? This isn't about fairness it is all about browbeating people from a perceived moral high ground so that wages can be lowered for all (more supply of programmers = lower cost). The "useful fools" here likely have the best intentions but are being used by people without good intent.

Actually, diversity measures make things worse by promoting below-average candidates unfairly based on their superficial attributes (skin color, sex etc). This actually achieves the opposite of what is intended as it reduces fitness selection of whatever genes make someone good at/interested in STEM topics. By going against meritocracy you are harming the vulnerable groups by giving them a crutch to rely on.

>The reality is that tech companies led by women do better Wow, what a sexist thing to say. Ignoring Marissa Mayer for the moment, are you claiming that women are inherently better at something than men? Isn't that a little like claiming that men are better than women at technical roles? That white people are better than black people at building civilization? Seriously, that is a nazi-esque belief you have there. I suggest you reconsider your stance before making claims about one group being better in any way than another.