I also noticed that every developer was from one gender and even commented to my partner at the time, at which point I remembered it was international women's day and perhaps this was Apple showing their support in an unvoiced/non-bombastic way.
Does this make me a misogynist? For noticing something?
They've taken it so far that in a way, they've swung to the other end of the extreme. Less diversity by emphasizing diversity too much, if that makes sense.
Since discussing gender and skin color always gets people worked up, let me pick a less controversial one: wealth.
When you check Apple's adverts and see the actors using their products, they're clearly living the Valley lifestyle. They're all young, fit, filthy rich, have fantastic work spaces and living rooms, carefully designed by fashionable architects, lead an inner city lifestyle where they hop on Ubers to go to Starbucks, you get the idea.
...none of which represents even a fraction of the actual customer base. The working class is not featured, rural people are not featured, other countries are not featured, which leads me to conclude that Apple's signaling is not diverse. It's fashion for the elite, with a vast distance to their actual users.
Apple's products are desirable enough for it to not matter, but it's fine to spot it. It's hard to miss.
Just don't misread it as anything but optics. Have a look at leaked tech memos to understand how Apple really thinks. They're predatory towards competitors. They'll do anything to dodge taxes and bypass consumer protection laws. They sabotage open standards. They rely on exploitation for their manufacturing. They make secret deals so that employees can't switch. They treat their store staff as garbage.
Apple is a deeply unethical, predatory, neoconservative company. Yet if you feature lots of black women in your ads, you optically look progressive and good.
Woke capitalism from the world center of hypocrisy: California.
I agree completely. I also believe that hackernews is the exact target audience for Apple products. People who can argue that $250,000 for a non-manual, 9-5 job is somehow not a good salary.
Apple like to show people (all people from all backgrounds) as if they are normal or average rather than the hyper-elite that they are. If Apple had an advert with the average family in an average home it would probably be distressing to most people.
I'm lucky enough to be in the top 20% of earners in my country and I am in my 30s, but I still would never be able to afford a house as depicted in Apple's advertising. Or have the budget to spend $5,000 on a computer for my work.
Where is the correct place for this "strange note"?
I think you are attaching some message to the author that wasn't there, labeling it as "strange". It was a conscious decision by Apple during a presentation that is ostensibly one long advert. The goal is for people to talk about their products and their brand and their "image". Goal achieved because here we are.
[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Noticing
I don't particularly care if a normal word, which is in plenty of dictionaries, is co-opted by a small group of people. My friends won't know this secret meaning, my family won't know that, whatever is on the TV, Radio, or Cinema won't know that.
And now this conversation is completely off topic.
The internet is so hyper partisan that even normal, boring usage of the English language is now weaponised as shibboleths.
I realized that...
I became aware...
That's without even looking for a thesaurus. Not that I'm supporting this alt-definition of noticing, but your question seemed pretty trivial to answer.
Maybe it's better to assume that most people in the world aren't evil degenerates unless there's hard evidence to the contrary.
Its human nature, people will avoid it by not engaging if it just gets thrown around and used to berate without cause.
> when misogyny is, in fact, at every turn
Yes, it pervasive but not at every turn. Case in point, this thread.
> as is avoiding mentioning misogyny because of people doing that.
No one is saying to avoid it. Just saying that it is not helping when you indiscriminately label everything as misogyny.
On a more personal level, you should query why your response to a question about why every single presenter was a woman (in the computer industry it's statistically impossible that it was a random assortment) is to accuse the questioner of being a misogynist. You're probably the same kind of person who would label a person who asks why blacks make up 14% of the population but commit 52% of the crime in the United States a racist. In neither case have you contributed anything, nor have you done anything to further the enquiries that are clearly being hinted at: Why did Apple think it was appropriate to have nothing but women presenting a keynote? Corporate virtue signalling? If blacks commit so much crime, why, and if they don't, why are the numbers inaccurate?
But of course, labelling somebody as a misogynist or a racist takes 2 brain cells and 5 seconds.
Do better.
We don't know this because the figures cited are biased towards successful convictions. If white folks are able to afford better, more competent lawyers, you can expect them to mount successful defenses. I've never, ever, seen anyone post the 13/50 stat without acknowledging this fact in their comments or replies. And I've seen it a lot.
At any rate - my response is that not only are blacks exponentially more likely to be convicted, but they are exponentially more likely to be arrested in the first place (talking about per capita population here). This obviously has nothing to do with lawyers, because it's data from the stage preceding the lawyers showing up. You'll probably respond by saying that in fact the system is rigged against blacks (cops are racists, you'll say), and maybe you'll point out how NYC's stop and frisk policy disproportionately targeted young black males (the same ones who are exponentially more likely to be both arrested and convicted in the first place). You'll point out correctly that my reasoning on this point is circular, and then I might bring up the stats from both before stop and frisk, during it, and then after it was no longer city policy, to suggest some causality. I might also draw the link between IQs and crime rates (the causality of which has been demonstrated across racial groups), and I'd point out how black adults are basically a full standard deviation below the average white or Asian American. I'd also probably point out that IQ isn't something that can be changed very quickly, whether by lawyers, or nutritionists, or water filters, and that there's nothing to suggest that the IQ gap is likely to improve very quickly (and that's assuming that it's the result of environmental and not genetic factors in the first place, which isn't clear). On that note I'd also probably bring up how intelligence and personality seem to be 70-90% genetic, and the problems that fact alone ostensibly presents. You might, again (and not incorrectly), point out how 'the system' has basically been fucking blacks for the past 200 years, and that it's therefore impossible to say with certainty what they would look like in an environment without such horrendous baggage, and I'd respond that notwithstanding it being true that they've been mistreated, enslaved, and in some US states subjected to what we'd today call genocide, it doesn't change the fact that they are (apparently) both dumber than non-blacks (on average) and, as the plausible result of being significantly less intelligent, much more likely to commit violent crimes. Where would we go from there?
What an extremely unkind thing to say. There was nothing in the GP to suggest this. In fact it’s entirely plausible that Apple decided to honor women’s day this way.
You must have known that accusing people of misogyny can have a impact on their livelihood in today’s hyper PC world. That makes your comment even more unkind. I think you should apologize.