You might be surprised at just how little I care that there is some "logical" reason that preventing me from marrying whomever I love is worth $1000 to Brendan Eich.
I'm sorry, this paper is bizarre and somewhat incoherent. magicalist goes into some of the problems with it, but the even larger problem that I see is that it seems to completely ignore the larger climate of intimidation and erasure by public officials, and look at "are specific people being harmed by this specific law", and I'm disinclined to trust its analysis even on that.
It's written by somebody who claims to be a journalist and managing editor yet has basically zero online presence in bylines or anything that I can find. Nor does he provide any contact information (apart from being from Chicago, which, good for him, I guess?). That makes very little sense.
In the US at large, LGBT rights and support for them has been growing, imperfectly and inconsistently, but growing. In Russia, it seems that there's been a backlash, and Putin and company are stirring up public sentiment against LGBT people. I'll take the word of Russians that things are actively getting worse:
I'm vaguely aware of Citi's tax plan, but I'd have to look into it. If I can learn the details, I'll start a series of case studies that break down the tax strategies of different fortune 500 companies.
It's not necessarily something you notice. It gradually gets a bit more difficult once you start getting past that point. And you won't necessarily think "oh, this is so hard to read" either (at least at large-but-still-reasonable widths). It'll just end up being a factor you weigh (if not consciously) when deciding "okay, I've had enough with reading this" and go on to the next thing.
I'm glad that there is at least one person who is bringing up the issues with the MBTI.
The assumption that you can judge personalities from a Myers-Briggs test is rather silly. The test was constructed by non-experts based on Carl Jung's theories of psychological types. The "Criticism" section of the test's Wikipedia article [1] is rich in citations of how the test by and large doesn't test anything, except perhaps the I–E scale.
I admittedly kind of have an axe to grind on this test. I think it's a waste of time if you're trying to actually learn something, and especially dangerous when people use it for any actual purposes other than just personal fun.
I'm really surprised by how they didn't mention one of the most striking results from the data: Latinos on OKCupid are much more likely to have the word "stationed" in their profile than other demographics. Based on this, it looks like the military contains a large proportion of Latinos ("stationed in [location]"). What are the demographics of the military versus the general population?
Army: White 63.9%, Black 19.0%, Hispanic 10.3%, Asian 3.8%
USA: White 75%, Black 12%, Hispanic 15%, Asian 4%
So hispanic is underrepresented in the army and black over represented - of course you would have to balance these by age profile for each group and also consider US overseas territories that can join the army.
Young blacks became underrepresented after the Iraq wars, but high NCO ranks are still heavily overrepresented.
Conversely, marine accessions are on the rise for young hispanics, and they are now slightly overrepresented. High NCO ranks are underrepresented, but diminishingly so.
So this is definitely a trend, but not a major one. Those mentions may have more to do with what contributes to the trend than be caused by it.
