The evidence says that during disasters ppl come together and help each other during disaster while state and business institution act in an at best obstructionist and at worst predatory way. So why do ppl in power believe the exact opposite? The simple explanations are that it's a delusion they actually hold, or a lie they project and either way it serves as a justification for the systems they benefit from.
"""Radon is found in some petroleum. Because radon has a similar pressure and temperature curve to propane, and oil refineries separate petrochemicals based on their boiling points, the piping carrying freshly separated propane in oil refineries can become radioactive because of decaying radon and its products.[84]
Residues from the petroleum and natural gas industry often contain radium and its daughters. The sulfate scale from an oil well can be radium rich, while the water, oil, and gas from a well often contains radon. Radon decays to form solid radioisotopes that form coatings on the inside of pipework.[84]""" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon
Except natural gas does not get distilled propane added into it (or at least I'm not aware of anyone doing that; the varying composition of natural gas is due to its varying geological origins).
Time to do that most desperate of things, actually read past the abstract.
First, this study was only in academia, and not industry so the results aren't necessarily generalizable. They probably do have some correlation, but they're very different environments.
Second, the very first paragraph after the abstract goes into why actually getting hired is just a tiny part of why women don't go in to stem, "...including inadequate mentoring and networking (1); a chilly social climate (2); downgrading of work products such as manuscripts (3), grant proposals (4), and lectures (5); and gender bias in interviewing and hiring (6–9)."
Third, this was rating an applicant for a third party, not actually hiring an applicant for them self, ppl act different when they have no skin in the game. While experiment 5 did try to account for this by removing the direct competition aspect so they only rated a single candidate rather than selecting a better choice from 2 options, however again there's no consequence for the choice except having your response presented in a paper.
What this study does show is that academics think that other academics view hiring equally women over men as socially desirable. This is not the same as actually doing it when given the opportunity, for an example of this see https://www.jstor.org/stable/3711747?seq=1 and the general trend of Americans saying they go to church even when they don't.
The claim "National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track" is not only unproven, it is not even examined. Instead, one small part of that complicated hiring process is examined.
Indeed, one possible explanation is that every woman who participated preferentially selected women because they want more women in the workplace, and every man who participated preferentially selected women because they definitely don't want women, but want to claim that they do, and this study offered them the perfect opportunity. "Look! We're not biased! This survey, which, thank god, didn't require that we actually hire one of these insane harpies, says that I love hiring women! Baaah! Cigars all round!"
An extreme possibility, I concede, and yet one which would explain the findings.
As a potted experiment, it really doesn’t generalize well. Weighting identical candidates except for race/gender/etc. may help uncover obvious forms of discrimination, but doesn’t address the path dependency aspects. For example, in the life sciences, women get less funding and fewer staff when founding research groups, while “elite” male researchers train 10-40% fewer women than other labs; as a result, women tend to have “worse” CVs later in their career due to earlier discrimination.
If a paper claim 1 + 1 = 3, one gotta introduce 2 to claim that the equation is wrong. Plus, you must not change your view based on single paper, because papers are not always 100% correct. There are always papers that contradict each other.
Given two candidates, one being a woman with so-so skills, and the other a competent man, I would (and have done so) hire the woman if no woman was in my team. The main reason being the change in group dynamics that a woman brings.
If enough women are in the team, my attention would revert to the candidate skills and I would probably choose the man.
> Time to do that most desperate of things, actually read past the abstract.
Hmm. Yes, that's a good idea.
> Third, this was rating an applicant for a third party, not actually hiring an applicant for them self, ppl act different when they have no skin in the game
Hmm...from the article:
"Real-world data ratify our conclusion about female hiring advantage. Research on actual hiring shows female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, but if they do apply, they are more likely to be hired (16, 30–34),...
Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings."
So this was real world data of a preference confirmed by the experiment.
What's interesting is the amount of pushback this study has received compared to the widely acclaimed "lab manager" study that "proves" women are discriminated against, which is much weaker (far less data), less well-designed, also exclusively from academia (and from different disciplines than the ones with the high imbalances!) and without the counterpart of real-world data.
Hmm.
See also: Gender Bias in Science? Double standards and cherry-picking in claims about gender bias.
Women and men leave STEM in roughly the same rate and for the same reason, climate is not the top reason. Lack of advancement and "didn't like the work" are. https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/
There's a lot going on but the basic reasons are:
Evangelical white Christians think the existence of Israel is necessary to bring about the Apocalypse, a thing they want because they go to heaven.
The Israeli right wing wants criticism of Israel to be inseparable from criticism of Jewish people. This means you can't criticize Israel without being painted as anti-Semitic, and to be fair there are a lot ppl who criticize Israel for deeply anti-Semitic reasons.
The deep irony of this is that Israel have an apartheid system that discriminates against many ethnic Semites (such as Palestinians). That and they supply military arms and training for far right groups in South and Central America - include ones with anti-Semite beliefs.
Quick rule of thumb, the reason we associate it with cancer is because the only ppl we systemically tested for it had cancer. If you tested everybody you'd probably find it in everybody since it was in a mandatory vaccine
Parts of India might get uninhabitable in the summer in some of the worse case scenarios. Given the population there and the fact they're a nuclear armed state that's a geopolitical powder keg.
If my choice is between definitely dying of boring old hypoxia and maybe dying in a cool explosion I know which one I'm picking.
But to be serious it's risk management and if the patient is definitely going to die of low oxygen then the patient having a risk of dying another way is still a lower risk.
If I'm going to die from a small internal explosion, I'd rather it start at the other side of the tube. If my guts explode, I might still have a few more days to live.
This is a nightmare. Getting spammed by ads on my devices is bad enough. Now when I go out in public I get shamed for all to see. Targeted automated advertising has got to be banned outright.
No search isn't a Natural Monopoly. There isn't some sole magical search spring that Google taps into or a need to dig search lines beneath everybody's houses like a utility. "It is very useful" does not make something a utility - having exclusivity to a commons is what makes it so.
There is nothing exclusive about search - Firefox and many other browsers allow you to choose between multiple search engines at any time without setting a permanent default.
What system do you propose that will implement wise unpopular and unpleasant decisions and not foolish ones ... at least more than electoral systems do?
Dictatorship of the proletariat, of course. You see left wing ideas rising in the discourse, media, and world - the fire burns within, Capitalism will fall soon
