vcjohnson

As mentioned in my comment, I realized mid-writing I didn't necessarily have point of contest to the thread OP. In retrospect, there was probably a more coherent place elsewhere in this thread to put my comment. Just providing context to what I've seen in the state and that from my subjective experience, Texan polling affinity for renewables was less related to environmental concerns and more towards economics. I'd consider this a much better vehicle for renewable adoption than ideological alignment anyway since it's significantly harder to convince people of environmental priority than it is to put more money in their pockets.

Grew up in the Permian basin (Odessa, UT grad as well), there really is a disconnect between larger cities and smaller towns in the state on ethos of renewables. DFW will likely be one of the first major metroplexes in the US to be powered 100% by renewables, but it won't be because the state is particularly environmentally friendly (even if DFW/Houston/Austin are). It will be because there is a vast expanse in the west side of the state to plop wind turbines and it’s cheaper than digging it out of the ground.

Not sure what point I’m trying to make here, just adding more context. Reality is that while many Texans may answer a survey asking if we should move away from fossil fuel dependence in a positive way, for most conservatives in the state I’d be surprised if it was anywhere near their chief concern when voting and would likely actively vote against it if the platform they are voting for meets their primary concerns. Thankfully, their chief concern is usually money/economy and Texas is a state that can be that can be very effective at migrating to energy alternatives in an economically beneficial way thanks to 300+ days of sunlight a year in most regions and large flat windy expanse from central Texas to Big Bend and up the padhandle.

Would just add that there is another level of complexity here. While fracking and the shale revolution do present a huge environmental problem, it’s advancement in the last 5-10 years does provide the US an extremely valuable foreign policy tool in removing the necessity of energy reliance on the Middle East whenever we want. I hope the state continues to move forward with renewables but fossil fuels, specifically in the Permian basin, is here to stay for a long time even if the state goes 100% renewable. It’s now a national security and economic priority in an age when American/Middle East relations are waning and American retrenchment from traditional allies is increasing.

But I didn’t imply causation? I literally gave the same “could be skewed due to healthier lifestyle choices” in my comment...

Personally love .NET and Visual Studio development, especially when I was forced back into Java recently. I'm not a huge fan of Windows 10 and but I really would love to stay in the development ecosystem for the foreseeable future.

That being said if they ever put out a fully functional VS for linux, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

For what it's worth, the stuff I've read on societies that flatten our social pressures for job roles, specifically the most egalitarian societies like in Scandinavia, have larger exaggerations of traditional job preference for the sexes rather than more equal distribution.

I don't think it's clear why both of these occur however and I haven't been convinced that people who try to derive a position solely off societal level trends tend to do anything other than show off their ideological preference on both ends of the debate.

Ah I see what you mean. I suppose I do identify with both the arguments then. Grateful to be born into a society that is as prosperous and free as the one I live and also cognizant that it was at least partially obtained using ventures that were, by today's standards, morally reprehensible.

Kind of a double edged sword though. Any society that currently allows the gratitude probably has a fairly checked past, even those outside the U.S. Not sure where one line begins and another ends.

Could you expound a bit on what you mean by immorally gotten?

>the most obvious poor decision here being the choice to post his manifesto on corporate services using corporate equipment

Why is this a violation? Not trying to be argumentative, actually just curious. Seems like putting personal thoughts on company Google Docs would be a questionable decision for privacy concerns, but not a violation.

>it has many flaws and inaccuracies

Can you expound on these a bit? Seemed like most of the adverse responses were appeals to emotion rather than dealing with the statements and I'd like to hear a rational critique of the issues.

That question appears to be addressed in the post to which you are responding. I won't be as bold as some to lay causation purely on biological differences, maybe there could be some factor we're not accounting for on why socially flattened societies tend to have larger exaggerations in traditional gender roles. However, if your policy platform wants to push equality of outcome for career paths on the sexes then this deviation from expectation should be disconcerting.

I don't think it makes that claim? Clearly women can be capable and competent software engineers. I think the study was showing there is an inherent preference for different interests among large population of the sexes and then people who are concerned about the gender gap take this study to argue that the differences (and others) may manifest later in life as choices in career path.

What is being censored? Maybe they should have a disclaimer about only putting forward non-controversial search recommendations to be transparent but, to my knowledge, you have no right to know what other people search for on google.

Google puts more positive search queries in all their recommendations...as was explained in the r/the_donald thread you got the idea from.