exporectomy

No matter how many new languages we invent, this problem of surprise sub-languages being parsed from strings never goes away. It's almost as if program code should be somehow impossible to confuse with user-visible text. Maybe there's no good solution though :(

I suspect a 2nd factor is competitive vs well-defined. CEO for example is people-oriented but 70% male. Maybe because it's also competitive.

Though it does seem obvious, it's pretty dangerous to go looking for patterns in the data. More scientific to define the criteria before knowing the results so you can have a hypothesis to test, not just an observation to make.

From TFA: "the people vs things dimension is a continuous scale, but in our analyses we only used categories that are predominantly one or the other. All things-oriented jobs have a clear technical component, ranging from locomotive engine driver to astronomer and all people-oriented jobs have a clear component of providing help to individuals."

It also identified "face to face interactions" as a requirement for being people-oriented. So dating app developer is clearly not included.

Is that really why eugenics is demonized? That the human race (not any living individuals) is giving up its freedom to some sort of fallible authority?

I guess, like censorship, people only object to an arbitrary subset of it. People love censorship of "really bad" ideas just as they love eugenics of "really bad" genes.

Most people seem happy with asserting our authority of gene selection over animals though :P Conservationism is that. Not to mention actual selective breeding and killing of course. Perhaps we rightly believe humans truly are capable of being benevolent arbiters of who gets to reproduce and who doesn't in animals.

Excuse me. It was this "a society allowing people to suffer from treatable illnesses is completely unnecessary and cruel considering that providing free care to everyone is something many countries do successfully"

I'm saying no country provides free healthcare for all treatable illnesses. And not providing it is necessary because the cost would be too great.

I agree it's cruel though.

Its distributedness is still worth something even if only a small number of people control most of it. If they go rogue or get stopped by the government, others can take over. That's quite unlike any centralized system.

Do you have a real concern with eugenics or is it just because your culture demonizes it?

We already have little bits of eugenics baked into law and culture. Why not a little bit more? It doesn't have to involve death camps.