asjldkfin

And that assumption is based off what?

The fact this is at the bottom of the comment pile would suggest your interpretation is unique

OP isn't complaining about societal issues; OP is trying to drag a couple just because they have demonstrated some modicum of success and happen to be "white".

They literally mentioned nothing about societal issues, except the implicit racism in their assumption that whiteness somehow inherently detracts from people's accomplishments.

It's amazing how much bitterness and jealousy can be encapsulated in just one sentence. It's almost poetic.

This anecdote supports a theory I've been hearing about affirmative action harming excellent minority candidates.

It helps those who would've not made it otherwise, but for those who truly excel and would've made it either way; it diminishes their accomplishments in a way that's unfortunate.

It's not like affirmative action is a secret, the buyers in the labour market knows about it and will react accordingly.

In some ways, I guess it's similar to how people used to avoid buying cars made on a Monday.

Referring specifically to Harvard and other Ivys. I have no idea why any public university would consider legacy as a factor.

Edit: I think it's a leap to tie legacy admission from 2 generations ago to racism. Because that's attributing wide spread societal faults to a few specific institution.

As private institutions, they can do whatever they want. Race is a special case since it falls under a protected attribute.

I don't think there's any grounds for asking them to stop considering legacy.

The title needs to be changed. Right now, it implies [name redacted] killed his girlfriend via strangulation when in fact, he allegedly assaulted her.

No, companies should treat its employees with well defined policies that are easy to understand, enforce and audit.

Treating employees with something as variable and open to interpretation as "empathy" is what causes companies to implode- because who defines empathy? Who defines where the line is drawn? And why is it fair that some people will inevitably get more empathy than others because maybe the manager was having a good day and then a bad day.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I assume you're probably early enough in your career you never had to manage people. But when you eventually do, try to separate idealism from reality.

It's not like Jeff Bezos personally fired him. His direct manager is not working with a trillion dollar market cap.

If I'm paying a person $200-$300K to build a house and his wife gets cancer; it doesn't entitle him to keep my money. He gives it back because he didn't do his job.

Same principle.

which dedicated key?

I have the exact same setup as you, moonlander + vimium + vimac.

Out of curiousity, how are you binding Vimac?

I'm binding it to where the right-shift key should be, and it's worked well, but always curious about alternative setups.

Every robotics VC holds their breath in anticipation...

I never said they can't lobby the government. I said they shouldn't feel entitled.

If I'm destitute and I'm at a soup kitchen; I wouldn't complain about the food even if it sucks, because the alternative is to starve.

It's the same thing here, beggars can't be choosers. If you want the government to change the rules, go ahead. But don't demonize the company that's literally putting food on your table because you don't like the only job you can find.

What's the alternative? Having people independently decide what humane/ethical/moral means?

If you feel like you're not being treated with dignity and respect, then quit the job.

Move somewhere else. If you can't find a perfered job in your hometown, you don't force the local company to make a job to your satisfaction, you move to a different part of the country.

Why should these people get any other type of consideration.

Sure, change the rules. If you can get everybody to agree to it. But until then, what's legal is legal; and Amazon is within the bounds of the law.

I wouldn't either; that's why I don't. Just like how these people, if they don't want to work for Amazon, shouldn't.

The problem is that the "justice system" is the only universally agreed upon system. The alternative is everybody upholds their own justice and we have anarchy.

If you want to change the justice system, go ahead. But there's a difference between changing labour laws and going after one specific company.

If a politician's solution to "making sure people aren't treated like animals" is going after a single company; rather than fixing the system, then they've failed as politicians.

Sure, but then why are you still working there if its so terrible?

That's a gross exaggeration; Amazon is not even close to being the only company you can work for.

But Amazon didn't break any worker protection laws, they're within bounds.

I would argue the "justice" system is the best determinant of what's "just" by definition.

I kind of empathize with Bezos, there's a certain tone of entitlement to this entire saga. Amazon doesn't own anybody a job, if working conditions are shit (but assuming it's legal), you should quit.

If Amazon is your best option, then you should be grateful for it.

If I went to work everyday, complained loudly about how much the job sucks, I wouldn't have a job anymore and I'd understand. To think I'd be able to criticize my organization and still be entitled to a job is lunacy.

That's not the point. The point is that you can stand up for yourself without throwing a fit, because genuine power doesn't come from how angry you can get.

Shrugging off insults doesn't equate to being a doormat.

If you insult your boss, do you expect him to flip out and lash back at you to prove his status within the company? Or does he just laugh it off and then ask his assistant to make a memo to fire you later in the day?

Sure, people will have instinctual reactions; but if I dangle a naked girl in front of a man, most will get an erection and desire for sex. But even in this fantastical scenario, it doesn't make rape any more tolerable- because we expect human beings to be able to control their basic instincts. Isn't that what separates us from animals after-all?