rada
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
1. Yes she threw up in space. So do ALL astronauts. So much so that NASA has procedures on how to handle that (http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17970838-vomit-i...).
2. Tereshkova did not have a panic attack in space. She had a panic attack before going and was strapped into the seat against her will. Again, this is not uncommon - NASA considers behavioral and psychiatric conditions a significant risk to the integrity of its missions (http://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/risk.aspx?i=99).
(An interesting aside: A 1976 Soviet space mission Союз 21 had to return early because of "interpersonal issues" but of course these were male astronauts so no one says the mission was aborted due to crew's cat fighting).
3. Tereshkova was not "unresponsive", she fixed multiple engineering/communication failures, both during flight and landing.
Q. What was the fate of the women's group after Tereshkova's flight?
A. It is well known that Korolev's attitude toward the presence of women at work and especially on the launching pad was very negative. He believed that on a launching pad, like on a ship, a woman brings misfortune.
(Korolev was the head of the Soviet space program at the time).
In the music world, this is a well known punchline to the "how do you get to Carnegie Hall" joke. Lots of people get in that way, such as the Tiger Mom's daughter, as one famous example. (And let me tell you... as a classical music lover duped into attending these performances because of the Carnegie Hall brand - they suck).
There is an interesting parallel to another front-page post on HN today, Entrepreneurs don't have a gene for risk – they come from families with money (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10151566). This quote fits especially nicely: "So while yes, there's certainly a lot of hard work that goes into building something, there's also a lot of privilege involved - a factor that is often underestimated."
Women and brown people are not lower quality humans, and it has been shown over and over and over that companies who hire for diversity perform better.
Incidentally, if it were a 2-party scenario where you required a specific contractor to be available on demand, you would probably be their legal employer. A mandated, regular schedule is indeed one the main tests when distinguishing between an employee and a contractor. I have worked as a software contractor in the US for over almost 15 years and the employers, especially the larger ones with proper HR departments, have been careful to define my work in terms of skills and deliverables, not hours worked.
Not true. I know someone who drives for Uber. Just last month, he was suspended because he did not want to drive during low-demand hours (when he literally loses money). Uber drivers are, in fact, required to (a) work when they don't want to and (b) work specific hours.
As always, it helps to remember that women are people and therefore the overwhelming majority do not fantasize about actually being tortured and possibly killed or maimed for life. (Not saying that the parent actually said anything to that effect, just trying to drive home the point that these stats use bad terminology).
Edit: for some reason I cannot reply so I will post an answer here.
Is the survey methodology flawed in what they ask the respondents?
I think so. The linked study said it counted self-reported incidents of fantasies of sexual encounters that fall within "the legal definition of rape", and that's where I have a problem. The central point of the legal definition of rape is the lack of consent. So how could sexual fantasies, which are by their nature something you want in that moment, be counted as non-consensual? You are asking people about a consensual sexual scenario that's only staged as non-consensual but then you are counting it as non-consensual. It's like asking people if they fantasize about the doctor/nurse scenario (or whatever) and when 20% report that they've had that fantasy, you conclude that 20% of the population wish they had a serious illness.
From the article:
We discuss how much money we should ask Artem to refund us. We consider all the time and energy he’s cost us in addition to the cash, and decide to request all our money back.
A search on GoDaddy informs me that www.artemandreenko.com is available. I buy it and begin writing this blog.
The following day Clyde and I had our last chat with Artem. We were interested to see his reaction to a draft of this blog, and to give Artem the opportunity to decide how the story ends.
You say "karma", I say "shake-down".
P.S. Negative review blackmail has been around for a long time: https://www.google.com/search?q=negative+review+blackmail. Your startup is not doing anything new.
P.P.S. Biggest lesson of all? When you use GoDaddy, Bad Things are bound to happen.
"She didn't want to go," Soviet space scientists told me. "At the last minute, she panicked, and they had to strap her into her seat against her will."