dotgov
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
With regards to the guilt question: I did make the honest mistake of misquoting the history of another inmate before, what stands out to me and what I wanted to point out: I don’t think it is a coincidence that both of those inmates grew up in an environment of poverty. We do have the specifics of what happened in childhood in the first case, the second one I can only infer from the fact of teenage drug use and of growing up in a certain environment, which are both things I would expect to have a high correlation with childhood trauma.
This is not to say that Milton is not guilty of a crime, in the legal sense. But to expect someone who has been beaten, abused and has gotten the short end of the stick all their life to take full individual responsibility for something he didn’t have a choice in does seem inhumane to me. In a way like Melanie, he was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
And what purpose would such an admission of guilt serve? Would it take make it easier to believe that tragedies like this are fully the individuals responsibility and that the environment the individual grows up in has no influence on the outcomes?
“Milton dropped out of school after the 8th grade and worked as a cook, mechanic’s helper, and laborer before his arrest. Milton abused alcohol and drugs as a teenager.”
In another article he was being referred to as having “low IQ”. Combined with the fact that the murders happened in a crack house, I infer that he probably lived in a similar environment and had a comparable upbringing and childhood.
What sticks out to me the most: the column with the title “race” I find incredibly disturbing.
Hard to say, personally my experience is that the junkie lifestyle seems less hollow and more appealing than it is, no matter the quality of the substance.
To me the downside of marketing results aggressively to justify one’s funding is that the quality signal can become inversely correlated. Is this valuable research or is someone who knows to play the DOE game inflating a metric to secure their next round of funding and/or expand their turf? Does this negatively impact researchers who do not have access to a comparable marketing apparatus?
I entered the workforce a bit earlier than 2015 and I would have expected HR to be a neutral arbiter as well. My experience at different employers has proven my expectations to be wrong or at least naive. On every occasion I needed to interact with HR, information (eg. applicable laws) was selectively filtered to make it look like my only option was the one that was beneficial to the business.
YMMV, but for me this is good advice and a welcome reminder.
This problem occurs precisely because foreign tech workers are being treated differently. You are also glossing over the fact that those tech workers are on their path to become citizens.
Agreed on the physical infrastructure and that those things will be done locally, I do not consider those things as a competitive advantage on the global market, compared to strengthening the local semi industry by doing an “Euro ARM” chip or some such.
No doubt that some of that money will benefit the European economy, with regards to the effectiveness and long term strategic view I do have my doubts, especially compared to what the US/Japan have been able to pull off.
I’d imagine the Japanese Fugaku system which is based on ARM and built by Fujitsu a more effective way to directly support a nation’s economy and engineering capabilities.
I could be wrong, of course, nevertheless I find it puzzling.