Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

So....Royal Family?

[Sheb]

It technically is genetic. All ants in a colony have the same genome, it's just regulated expression that differentiates minims from minors from mediae from soldiers and so on. This paper talks about the mechanisms for regulating caste in honeybees, but as it notes the final determinant is the amount and type of food given to the bee during its larval stage, and the mechanism is the same in ants and termites. The second paper talks about genetic differences in eggs in a leafcutter ant colony fertilized using sperm from different males, and how it seems that workers of different genetic lineages contribute different proportions of the various subtypes of worker.

https://bmcdevbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-213X-7-70
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9394.full

Oh, that second paper is interesting. Thanks!

[Neonivek]

Ok so... Because the gender thread is never coming back I'll ask this here

What is the WEIRD thing I keep seeing in "Feminist" questionairs... About if women should get a job if they only fulfill 60% of the requirements? (obviously that seen as a positive)

Where is that from? What the world could be the argument for that?

[Sheb]

Ok so... Because the gender thread is never coming back I'll ask this here

What is the WEIRD thing I keep seeing in "Feminist" questionairs... About if women should get a job if they only fulfill 60% of the requirements? (obviously that seen as a positive)

Where is that from? What the world could be the argument for that?

I never seen that anywhere. Do you have an exemple?

[Neonivek]

Man you are evil Sheb, forcing me to go to tumblr-style feminist questionnaires.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamassa1/how-much-of-a-feminist-are-you?utm_term=.kf5WjKNRVY#.rteeN0kj5P

Mind you this is Buzzfeed which is rather vile in itself. Actually depending on your tastes this quiz could be comedic.

[Biowraith]

About if women should get a job if they only fulfill 60% of the requirements? (obviously that seen as a positive)

A minor quibble, but it only says they should be allowed to apply for the job.  It's an odd question since I didn't realise you ever needed permission to apply for a job.

[Neonivek]

About if women should get a job if they only fulfill 60% of the requirements? (obviously that seen as a positive)

A minor quibble, but it only says they should be allowed to apply for the job.  It's an odd question since I didn't realise you ever needed permission to apply for a job.

It is how it phrased the question, but that isn't what it means since, as you said... no one needs permission to apply for a job. (And applying to jobs you don't 100% qualify for is normal, since a LOT of businesses overinflate the job requirements)

Other questionnaires don't phrase it that way. I am not sure why this one changed the phrasing.

[Sheb]

Well, I guess it has something to do with how men tends to more easily apply for jobs where they're not entirely qualified, while women tends to be less forward for those things?

Also, frankly, I'm willing to make an attempt at explaining what it means, but if you're just going to redefine the meaning to whatever you want and then ask me to explain that,I'm out.

[Biowraith]

I'm sure I've heard it said in discussions about pay etc that men are more likely than women to apply for a job when they don't meet the requirements (using it as an example of why more men end up in top jobs, even if you eliminated any discrimination in the actual hiring process), so I took it as deliberate wording in reference to that.  I'm not familiar with feminism questionnaires (or Buzzfeed for that matter) in general though.

(ninjad)

[Neonivek]

I'm willing to make an attempt at explaining what it means

You did. I understand, assuming that it wasn't the other questionaires that were misworded (which is... also possible) this is referring to male vs. female job tendencies.

It is still poorly worded but whatever.

"if you're just going to redefine the meaning to whatever you want and then ask me to explain that, I'm out."

Ooooooook? You already said what they were referring to and I believe you? O_o

[Frumple]

Uh. Some of you have apparently not been job searching the last few years? Or at least not in the right/wrong places. You do, in fact, need permission to apply to quite a number of jobs, these days. Plenty of places will only accept applications through certain venues (local-ish job search organizations, etc.), which themselves will only let you apply if you can prove you meet base qualifications. Trying to insist will get you, regardless of gender, the more politely worded equivalent of, "No, also fuck off."

It is normal to apply for stuff you don't meet quals for, but some joints totally will stonewall yer arse if you try and give a very insistent boot if you attempt a runaround of some sort.

[Paxiecrunchle]

Perhaps we can get back to something more cheerful than people failing to find jobs.

Like why is yellow "caution" tape used almost everywhere in the U.S to the point where I feel it's lost it's warning factor (I've seen performance events taped off even) why not caution signs or something simply saying "restricted area" why is this stuff everywhere even in non dangerous situations?

[Trekkin]

Perhaps we can get back to something more cheerful than people failing to find jobs.

Like why is yellow "caution" tape used almost everywhere in the U.S to the point where I feel it's lost it's warning factor (I've seen performance events taped off even) why not caution signs or something simply saying "restricted area" why is this stuff everywhere even in non dangerous situations?

Because it's cheap and an unambiguous barrier. A sign, absent further clarification or reference to some other physical object ("do not enter", for example, generally needs a door), is vague; tape defines a straight line beyond which people ought not cross.

But mostly because you can get a thousand feet of it for a few bucks.

[Neonivek]

What is the difference between a Riot and a Violent Protest?

Because I can find quite a few protests where they attacked people in mobs, threw large rocks at cars, or performed other forms of destruction.

Yet whenever I try to find it by just looking for Riots it turns out it is labeled a "Violent Protest" or sometimes not even that.

I tried to look up the difference but MOST people seem to suggest that Violent Protest and Riot are the same thing, or that Violent Protest is a contradiction of terms.

The only difference I found that is close is that a Violent protest will still have a majority of people protesting, even if a few are turning over cars. While a Riot completely disrupts the protest.

[wierd]

This is difficult, as most riots break out "In protest" of something.  Be it food shortages, authoritarianism of police or government, hiring black non-union dock workers, imposing the draft, etc.

Today, it is not politically acceptable to ascribe the word "Riot" to violence during a protest, even when all the signs and symptoms of an honest to goodness riot are present.