Good point. If you think about it, due to the distribution of guns and the fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or domestic violence - living in a gun-free household should reduce your risk even more dramatically than these statistics might suggest.

About half of suicides are done via gun, and about half of households have access to a gun.

There's nothing "dramatic" about reducing your chance of dying via suicide by being in the second half. I don't want to say it's zero, because I'm sure someone's life is spared by not having a gun around when the urge to suicide pops up.

I think that's built into this, though. People don't have to "believe" if it's cheaper.

I think if you read the article more closely using those examples was supposed to be pointing out lazy thinking, not actually advocating those as legitimate answers.

Perhaps, though I did more than simply skim the article. If that was the intent, the author probably could have done a better job of making that point.

This is pretty much the longest ongoing trolling effort in existence.

Well, that's sartorially normative, isn't it? Check your privilege.

Yes I suppose it is. I guess I should say it the other way. I'm impressed with the long-botheredness of people in power regardless of the intent of the people wearing the fashion. Most of the time parents, clergy, etc give up after a decade or two and accept something as normal.

Do I get a receipt?

More nearly seriously, am I supposed to check my privilege the way I might check my fly, or check it the way I might check my raincoat or my baggage?

The way you check Google, before you look like an ass on Hacker News.

Have we considered there's actually a hiring and management problem? That we have organizations ill equipped to find and train new employees and thus they only go with proven candidates?

This is the truth. From what I have seen, organizations are bad at acquiring the technology and support they need because most managers lack the relevant experience to have any real oversight over their employees or contractors.

It also includes far more writing and communication than it does mathematics, and yet we don't tend to talk about it as a part of Liberal Arts (or specifically Philosophy) much at all.

I feel like the biases come from the origin of programming. But to suggest that it is somehow exclusively mathematics because of its origin is puzzling. It is quite clearly mostly words, many of which are arranged into sentences based upon a strict grammar.

It's also odd in that the reason the original article was written was to suggest that it wasn't an insurmountable field, and that many more people could probably learn it if they were not intimated. It's odd that the response seems to be "FEEL INTIMIDATED MORTAL!". I feel like we're seeing gatekeepers feeling threatened rather than a particularly logical argument.

Another way to phrase it is libertarians should focus on the heavy lifting of reforming small pieces of government where they are likely to have success rather than focusing so single-mindedly on issues they are unlikely to have much impact on.

Actually one of the things that gives me the most hope is the fact that Godwin's law is so much less frequently invoked. I think after a couple decades of being able to vomit up the first thing on our minds, many people are learning to take a more measured approach online.

Interesting I wouldn't have counted them twice, as my instinct is that we're talking about an adjective and an adverb - BUT - flouncing is also a noun that is the material that is used to make a dress flouncy.

Sewing definitely has at least as many technical terms as comp-sci.