CharonY

Like an Honor's thesis?

It depends on the department and/or company. More generally, it depends on the composition of a given group as well as the organizational structure. The question cannot be answered with yes/no but for the most part it is one of degrees. Certain stereotypes are more widespread in certain areas than others. In some cases measures against them have been effective, in others they may actually lead to persistence or spread of stereotypes. Also, often times stereotypes (belief about a group of people) can be more widespread and ingrained into a given organizational structure (say, in a work environment where there have been traditional gender roles) than actual prejudice, though the former certainly can foster the latter. Stereotyping is a very human form of categorization, so in a way it is a natural way to deal with a complex environment. As such , it is not something that is specific to science or tech, it is just in a number of areas there are severe gender imbalances. Unfortunately, an aspect of stereotyping is that we use positive correlation as a way to strengthen stereotypes. Thus, if we assume that women are less willing or able to get into tech, we take the observation of imbalance as a validation of the given stereotype.

You are not making things any clearer.

You are correct. They can be propagated in clonal lines only. Theoretically, mutations may eventually occur and cause some divergence over time . The same happens with cell lines when propagated continuously. However it is a very slow process.

How does it have anything to do with the topic? Not to mention that the Gatestone Institute has a known bias and has a number of times been found to put out entirely false reports for political purposes.

From everything known so far it rather looks like Sandy Hook, Columbine, maybe Charleston or the Denmark terror attack in 2011 (though the latter two actually had some political connotations). I mean, while we are randomly pulling out shootings, I wonder what the common theme is.

Meanwhile, discussions start on the real culprit: hotel/casino security.

Interestingly, I found that there are more variations in the US system compared to the German one, which was initially quite confusing to me. You chaotic Americans always with ze freedom of choice.

I should have clarified, the concepts of these areas are quite different than what was described as lawless zones. Rather those National Befreite Zonen are essentially areas where specific people are afraid to go (which is why the State law enforcement refuses to call them No-go Zones but describes them as fear zones instead). In the article they cite that in Brandenburg ~17 such zones may exist. There are official statements from some states that acknowledge or at least discuss these fear zones, which make them a real concept rather than mere fantasy (sources would be in German, however). Or to put it in a different context, these areas do not exclude law enforcement, but instead targets very specific types of people (i.e. foreigners and Jews) which is in some ways the opposite concept of the mythical Sharia zones. There, the targeted people are excluded from participating in public activities. Have a look at the article, it provides quite a nuanced view (rather than the more hysteric version one might see in the news.).

Sure, the article I was referring to was Novotny, 2009: Right-wing extremism and no-go-areas in Germany. I doubt Fox would mention it as according to them there is no relevant right-wing extremism. There are articles from various "Laender" (States equivalent) that contest such characterization and call them "fear areas" (Angst-Raeume), where being afraid of right-wing extremists keeps people away rather than actual potential for violence. That, in turn has been contested by others. Anyway, there are also a couple of books that discuss these concepts in the context of modern radical right movements in Germany from the 90s to today, if you are interested.

Schools can have very different requirements and programs. There are, for example non-thesis degrees that are often based entirely on coursework (which I believe swansont is describing). Often (but not always) the course is more applied and requires some form of report, rather than a full thesis on a subject.

As others point out, there are areas of high crime (as in larger country in the world). The part about Sharia law is just ridiculous. Many articles have debunked. If you need an eyewitness account how about that . After Fox news made that claim, there was a spat of youtube videos of French and British folks taking videos of themselves while walking through those areas, some while having beer or bottles of wine with them (in Europe there are no open container laws). In Germany there was recently an article that does indeed describe areas that were purposefully created as no-go zones, so-called national befreite Zonen, in which neo-nazis claim control (essentially by beating up anyone not being white enough). Authorities disregard these claims, mostly, I presume because these zones are in areas where there are hardly any foreigners to begin with. More often than not there are just brawls with left youths. Other than massively misrepresenting the situation in major European countries, what is your overall point?

Just to give you an idea regarding the scope of potential EOs regarding gun control, Obama has signed an EO to make it mandatory for the Social Security Administration to put information on mentally ill recipients of social security benefits on record. These would then show up on background checks. As you can see, navigating the issue just by affecting how regulations are enforced is quite complicated. However, it is not entirely impossible but requires leveraging existing rules and regulations in potentially creative ways. For example, it is not possible to make regular mental health record accessible for background checks. Rather, the patient has to be in the social security system where SSA rules can be enforced. Also, that EO was reversed by a House resolution signed by Trump.

I think the main reason being that pop sci is more about providing an interesting narrative so that people have fun reading it. The educational part often feels like a poorly made add-on. Far too often the writing also betrays the lack of knowledge of the writer. In some ways topics that are far from one's area pf expertise are easier to stomach.

There have been many threads in which gender differences in the brain have been discussed. The real question is how big are these differences and do they justify societal differences. Most research is not conclusive in that regard. Most of the societal aspects you mention later in your post (but did not outline earlier) seem to be the result of gender roles characteristic of a patriarchic gender roles (you have only focused on a few aspects, though there are others with different ramifications). However, your anecdotes at your school specifically may be about something else entirely. As a whole I do find the posts somewhat incoherent, though.

I hoped for genuine curiosity. But judging from the outline I should have known better. The quote is from one of the early feminists, Caroline Bird. But obviously one cannot argue with a random youtube video (like, literally).

Yes and context matter if one wants to ask how to deal with it. That is not what subspecies are. How do you define sexism? Note that there is a difference between sexism and misogyny or misandry. As such, sexism exists on a spectrum. A good quote that I heard is "Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn't matter".

Right, and those people may lose their jobs. A bit of an issue is when the project is mismanaged though. Often (though not always) management has a bit more leeway to shift blame than the actual worker. So there is no difference to those that got into this situation but struggle to get out? And even if we ignore culpability, what is the bottom line? Are you alright with those underperformers dying from preventable diseases? Even from a selfish perspective this is a horrible idea as malnourished and sick people endanger public health. We could go further and just put people away that are unable or unwilling to succeed in modern society. But I hope I do not need to spell out why that is a horrible idea. Up until much was (and actually still is) run on emergency measures (e.g. injured and sick do get treated in emergency rooms), but that is the worst of two worlds. A part of the population has worse health outcome (as they only go when it is too late for other measures) and it increases the cost for everyone else. Also what about workers that get injured? If they fall through the net they will never become contributors on their own. I know plenty of immigrants in Germany who worked themselves to the bone to achieve middle and upper middle class lifestyles for themselves and their families. However, quite a few injured themselves or got sick because they were massively overworked. Without access to affordable healthcare they would have lost their only ability to generate income. Note that subsidies are not just blanket handouts for moochers. They serve an important societal benefit to a) ensure public health and safety b) reduce overall net cost of the health care system c) assist with transient benefits to allow people to lift themselves out of poverty. Statistics do show that by far most benefits are only transient and focusing on those few that may live off the system and ignoring the overall net benefit is just... bad policy based on emotion and ideology.

That is pretty much the point. An ideology based approach where one or the other is not worthy of discussion is unlikely the best approach (and we are clearly not talking about the classic Marxist Socialism as it is a totally different ballgame). As you mentioned, it should not about "all socialism is bad" but rather, at which point do we see a diminishing return? What are the factors constraining a given system? Health, obviously, requires an at least somewhat socialized system as almost everyone is going to get sick at some point and at unless we die young, we are all ending up in the high-risk pool eventually. Of course, if someone discovers a free-market approach that demonstrably works, it should be worthy of discussion, but there is no evidence (not even theoretically) that one might exist given the overall structure of society and economy. As someone also coming from an immigrant background I am aware that individual accomplishments are important, but also that the difference between success and failure, especially for a working class family is just a razor-sharp line with many factors outside ones immediate control. Getting sick and not being able to afford the medical bill being one of them.

I have the feeling that you are not complaining about the type of assignment per se. Rather, it seems the essence that you have to do something that is not fun to you. In that regard, it is a decent preparation for a life after a degree. Writing, btw., is an incredibly transferable skill and there is always room for improvement. It seems that your goal is "good enough", which is fair and it does not seem that you get the most out of it. However, I am certain there are many who write very well, but continue to improve by testing their ability for critical reading of dense literature and their ability to synthesize their thoughts into an enjoyable essay. That, in essence, is one of the goals of higher education. Not to pass some arbitrary bar (for the most part) but rather continued self-improvement. However, there is no magic formula how that can be achieved by the instructor or any kind of system. Rather, it has to be a collaborative effort between the student and the instructors. The latter provide a framework in which they offer ways of learning, mentorship and means to assess improvement, the former has to figure out a way to utilize it to their own benefit.

I sincerely doubt that. Among my colleagues there are only a handful that can write really well. And those happen to be those that actually are doing a lot more writing than the rest of us (e.g. text books vs regular papers and grant applications). Even in more mundane and simple writing exercises (I mean lab protocols rather than actual papers) only a handful of students get things alright without significant amount of coaching. Those that did well often had creative writing or lit classes. So while you may not benefit from it, there are others who do.

Well, not to mention major destruction in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The last part especially is uncomfortably telling about the attitude to some of his citizens though (esp. when taking into context of his other recent comments).

Actually, it is. In the US MDs make more money if patients come in (and return) frequently. Telling them that they won't get anything is just a bad business model.

It is one of the proposed mechanism (i.e. health selection). However, the overall conclusion of the paper is that it is still unknown what causes the survival advantage for men. yup. Other hypotheses include unequal family responsibilities, demographic shifts, sampling issues and more. Interestingly a study found that age dissimilar marriages are more satisfied at the beginning at the marriage, but satisfaction declines with length of marriage. Conversely age similar marriages seem to be more resilient to negative shocks and maintain their initial satisfaction. Still, there are no conclusive hypotheses that would explain the observation. I vaguely remember that the author compared a model with and without taking socio-economic status into account. Am not sure what the outcome was anymore, though.

In a strange turn of events McCain announced that he would be voting against the new repeal. Considering how close he and Graham are, I did not expect that.