> I think abortion is a lot easier when you frame the argument around suffering.
Really? I think it becomes much more difficult. It invites arguments for infanticide (see the 2013 Giubilini paper on after-birth abortion for a famous example of this). The same arguments concerning a woman who is not able to take care of a child apply equally well after birth if suffering is the only consideration, because it's entirely possible to end the life of the baby in a painless manner. As someone who is pro-life, I've generally found the suffering angle to be the least compelling of the pro-choice counterarguments.
I do think you're right that there's an extra element beyond just suffering (otherwise you can argue that killing infants instantly is okay if they don't notice and they're not yet self-aware).
I think it's a mixture of suffering and having a neural network formed enough for ...something? I have an intuitive feeling that it's wrong to kill infants before they're self-aware even if 'done painlessly', but I don't feel that way about a blastocyst or a fetus without a sufficiently formed neural network that can suffer.
I recognize this isn't perfectly consistent though and I don't have a great answer for why.
> pro choice [...] are all desirable to the young people I know
Interestingly, unlike the other issues you've listed, pro-choice support does not vary a whole lot by age. 63% support from 18-29, 59% for 30-59, and about 57% for everyone older than that (https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti...) Whatever causes the difference on that issue is not due to age.
That's funny, because I avoid hiring non-PhDs. They typically don't seem capable of understanding the concept of sample size and tend to stereotype large and diverse groups of people based on anecdotal experiences.
I have a theory that from now on, the candidate who wins the presidential election will be the one that generates the most advertising revenue for the media companies.
> I have a theory that from now on, the candidate who wins the presidential election will be the one that generates the most advertising revenue for the media companies.
That's not actually a big change; Free media has always been powerful, and it's always been awarded based on the media’s business interests, mostly advertising dollars (except for outlets that are in the game to drive a specific agenda even when that involves sacrificing profit opportunities.)
Probably true! I halfway expect Chris Christie's new reality show to start just after Trump's reelection.
It's kind of a trap for old media, however. They are losing the only advantage they had, credibility. When that's gone, the bitter clingers will still watch for a while, but they won't find any new viewers/listeners/readers.
Are you open to sharing which companies? I've looked extensively in Atlanta and haven't found anything near SV comp. Square was the highest that I found.
How did you get a remote job at Netflix? Were you hired as remote or did you get an offer and then negotiate remote? I will eventually need to move away from the Bay Area to take care of family but the company I work for (FB) has almost no remote options and no offices near my family.
Really? I think it becomes much more difficult. It invites arguments for infanticide (see the 2013 Giubilini paper on after-birth abortion for a famous example of this). The same arguments concerning a woman who is not able to take care of a child apply equally well after birth if suffering is the only consideration, because it's entirely possible to end the life of the baby in a painless manner. As someone who is pro-life, I've generally found the suffering angle to be the least compelling of the pro-choice counterarguments.