This is incorrect in that the term was not neutral before WW2 nor was Nazi Germany Eugenics really unique. Taking these claims one at a time:
>the term was value neutral.
By the late 1930s the academic community had largely moved on from eugenics, the catholic church denounced it 1930 with their Casti Connubii, the Eugenics Office Records closing in 1935 and finally Laughlin retiring in 1939. (The leading Eugenicist)In 1930s being a Eugenics was viewed much like homeopathy is viewed today.
>Until a certain Austrian painter decided to practice eugenics in a uniquely negative way,
Eugenics in the united states saw the rise of the "Moron Laws" and mass sterilization of marginalized communities in the US. In fact, Nazi Germany's Eugenics policies were largely inspired by US Eugenic legislation and actively promoted by US Eugenicist. (Particularly California) Heck mass sterilization programs in the US didn't even die with WW2 continuing into mid 1970s.
I'm troubled by this thread because the vibe I'm getting is Eugenics was only bad because the science wasn't there yet and the Nazi's did it, this time will be different. No, the aspect which made eugenics dangerous were inherently political and every bit as relevant today than they were a hundred years ago. (Who decides which traits should be "edited" out? What traits should be "edited" in? What policies should be legislated? Who is primarily impacted by these policies? How much agency do the people impacted by these policy have in the situation?)
Not saying he won't try to circumvent it (definitely wouldn't be shocked) but if anything would trigger meaningful civil conflict, this would be it. (in my opinion)
>An IPv6 router with a stateful firewall blocking incoming connections could have just the same issues with timeouts, I'd imagine.
You'd be surprised... PCP (Port Control Protocol) implemented by large vendors such as Cisco and Apple are able to punch through a firewall for up to 24 hours in a single session.
He steered us to join the war which did end the depression.
Whether it be the new deal or non-isolationist policy, his direction led us out of the great depression which started before his presidency and ended before he died.
Yes the root cause might stem from management but good engineering would not have the doors flying off... thus bad engineering. Regardless of everything else, engineers are responsible for their designs at the end of the day. (Yes when management only approves cheap unsafe designs)
Otherwise you are "just following orders" which is not a viable leg to stand on.
I disagree. First, remember that we’re not talking about doors here, but walls. Specifically, a door plug which is a type of wall segment that can be put into the space where room was left in the airframe for an optional door. If you cannot get that detail correct, maybe your opinion doesn’t count for much.
Second, the steps for assembly of an airplane are all very important. If any of them are skipped or left out somehow, the plane will break! You can’t engineer your way out of this problem either: the more ways you add of attaching that door plug to the airframe, the more possibilities there are for mistakes. That’s why the assembly process requires one team to install the plug and another team to verify that installation was completed correctly and according to the specifications.
Any time you have managers using semantics to weasel their way out of the inspections that verify that the plane was assembled correctly, that’s the mistake. Full stop. Fire those idiots.
I think what happened is, Boeing codified all these labor-intensive manual processes back when they were riding high. The planes were selling well, they were state of the art. Now, 30 years later, it takes the same amount of effort to put everything together without mistakes, but the relative value of the finished product is less.
In smaller countries like Germany increasing the class size makes sense but countries like the US, it just doesn't scale. Just to give a better sense, my quick google-fu (so take it with a grain of salt) shows Germany having 2.8M people actively enrolled in college vs the US with 18.1M.
6x the amount of students, but also 6x the amount of universities, so each individual university has about the same count. At least that's what I assume; unless the USA have fewer universities for some reason?
At the time Errol & Maye were divorcing they had 2 homes, 5 cars, a yacht, and a plane. Most people don't own homes at the moment, let alone a private plane.
>What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley.
Having generational wealth is by far the largest contributing factor. Otherwise he wouldn't of been able to move across the globe to get a better education, focus on college and network, ect. Also not sure what Canada and Silicon Valley have to do in common? It is not like every Canadian ends up working in the Valley. That said, it does seem like most wealthy people over the past 40 years has in various capacities ;)
I'm not going to argue he isn't a successful CEO, (The results speak for themself) But I don't need to refute his business acumen to think he is an awful CEO who actively abuses, manipulates, and lies to his employees whenever it suites him. You can be a very successful yet bad CEO, these aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
In the context of this thread, IEEE aren't the ones who can improve such things. WiFi 6E and WiFi 7 both make considerable improvements on connect time but at the end of the day, they deal with the "backend" if you will.
They have no control over crappy WiFi NIC cards that delay connections or how Apple displays captive portals.
>the term was value neutral.
By the late 1930s the academic community had largely moved on from eugenics, the catholic church denounced it 1930 with their Casti Connubii, the Eugenics Office Records closing in 1935 and finally Laughlin retiring in 1939. (The leading Eugenicist)In 1930s being a Eugenics was viewed much like homeopathy is viewed today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casti_connubii - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
>Until a certain Austrian painter decided to practice eugenics in a uniquely negative way,
Eugenics in the united states saw the rise of the "Moron Laws" and mass sterilization of marginalized communities in the US. In fact, Nazi Germany's Eugenics policies were largely inspired by US Eugenic legislation and actively promoted by US Eugenicist. (Particularly California) Heck mass sterilization programs in the US didn't even die with WW2 continuing into mid 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics - https://alexwellerstein.com/publications/wellerstein_stateso...
I'm troubled by this thread because the vibe I'm getting is Eugenics was only bad because the science wasn't there yet and the Nazi's did it, this time will be different. No, the aspect which made eugenics dangerous were inherently political and every bit as relevant today than they were a hundred years ago. (Who decides which traits should be "edited" out? What traits should be "edited" in? What policies should be legislated? Who is primarily impacted by these policies? How much agency do the people impacted by these policy have in the situation?)