crackercrews

> And second, this really come across as hidden

It's easy to win arguments when you get to put words in the other person's mouth. Congratulations! Victory is yours!

It does not explicitly admit it, and seeing the quotes pulled separately make it harder to infer. But it's pretty clear when read in context that she's admitting that diversity is being factored into the longlists (which of course play a huge role in which books eventually win).

Are these quotas or just nudges? It's hard to say. But I've been in the room when decisions like this were made, by institutions that are legally barred from even considering race. But in reality, race wasn't just part of the decision, it was determinative.

I think she's missing the point here. First she says:

> Every couple of years, someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about complains publicly that judging panels are picking books based on wokeness or diversity quotas or some other nonsense.

OK, so the judging panels are not picking books based on diversity quotas, cool. But then she admits that the longlists are subject to diversity quotas:

> It’s true that longlists don’t look like they used to. This might have to do with prize committees themselves finally diversifying, which means a broader variety of opinions and tastes. And it might have to do with all of us preferring books that, you know, do not sound like every other book we’ve read.

> It turns out that when we read broadly and fairly, it’s no longer true that 95% of prizes go to straight white men, go figure.

To be honest, I don't pay much attention to book prizes, but I'm well aware of claims that it's not just that "white men don't get 95% of prizes anymore" but rather that in some cases, white men are not included at all, despite making up a fairly large chunk of the population. For example, apparently no white men born in the last 40 years have published literary fiction in the New Yorker. [1]

Are there book prizes with similar track records? I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that whoever is deciding on publishing at the New Yorker is probably pretty similar to the people handing out book awards.

1: https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-vanishing-white-male-...

Seeing this headline I thought it was about AB Hernandez. Guess I should have realized the assembly would not have passed such a bill.

> Bitwarden has also stopped listing “Inclusion” and “Transparency” as tentpole values on its careers page.

I'm pretty sure I have never cared about what values a company listed on its careers page, unless I am considering working there.

Unless I missed something, no one ever addressed the original question, which is how we know the policy was enforced along racially discriminatory lines. This requires knowing the extent of cheating in various racial groups and the extent of enforcement in each group. No evidence of the former has been presented.

Even if most of the people who were disciplined are from URM groups, that doesn't prove racially-biased enforcement.

Is it mitigated where the article is a discussion of coverage of Trump, rather than just ranting (in either direction)? This article was pretty nuanced, IMO.

The author makes a good point about how dating dynamics vary based on gender balance. There was a recent study that showed how much more power men have in the dating/hookup scene when there are more women, and how much less women like/trust men under these circumstances. Even if women are put at a disadvantage in the admissions process, there may be a net benefit to women (who end up attending) because they have more power in the dating market.

The autism part was only millions, I believe.

Who said it was scary? I just said there's been a spike in diagnoses.

It did cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and I assume that only a fraction of that will ever be repaid by the perpetrators.

I was referring to the social services scandal that is rocking the state of Minnesota, and which involved fake autism diagnoses. [1]

1: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/09/24/feeding-our-future-...

A swing and a miss. Note the geographic specificity and give it another go?

The rate of autism diagnosis is really off the charts in MN these days...

I stand corrected. [1] Google owns the name Pebble.

1: https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/27/24352968/pebble-smartwatc...

It's unclear that they sold the trademark in the first place.

Some can stream music over BT. If you want notifications you can get a cellular model or connect to wifi. But many people want to be left alone in the gym so would stay disconnected.

Do any of these sources adjust for the fact that people are not reporting crime in many places? When prosecutors don't enforce, police don't investigate, and people don't report crimes.

Automatic payments make banks sticky. Once you have your credit cards and utilities paid off with a particular account, you're probably not leaving.

Because a small number of checks have been free for many decades. They cost almost nothing to print. But banks now charge $20 for a small box. Add another $10 for shipping.

I don't use checks often but have to buy a box in order to have >0.

I've seen these fees in personal accounts. They're usually waived if you maintain a certain minimum balance. Sometimes it's a few thousand dollars, but if you want things like free checks or other "perks" they can be much more. And of course they don't pay meaningful interest on your deposits. They're basically charging you the fee in the form of lost interest.

Some platforms don't pay much attention to these instructions. LinkedIn is impervious to my suggestions.

Ok, well you're doing a great job of splitting hairs but have not brought any evidence. Good luck in 4 years, to us all!

Eh, ok. [1] I guess there must be another reason Trump's campaign spent hundreds of millions of dollars broadcasting that ad. It was way more than they spent on any other ad.

You're moving the goalpost here and pretending that neopronouns is not that big an issue. But it's obviously just part of the gender ideology issue, which was clearly part of the reason Trump won.

I can see that there are still people out there with their heads in the sand. I wonder who you'll help elect next time around?

1: https://www.megynkelly.com/2024/11/11/survey-finds-trans-iss...

Probably that gender ideology played a sizable role in getting Trump re-elected. It was the topic of his most popular ad, and IIRC the plurality of swing state voters said it was the most important issue for them.

So getting people to use preferred pronouns was a bit of a Pyrrhic victory in my book.

Much of this is because ZIRP is gone. Getting OPM is harder when they have more options.

As others have suggested I just avoid pronouns. This seems to be a common approach.

You seem to be in agreement with my sentiment.

There is also additional work in remembering which pronoun to use with which NB person. With most people, you just automatically say the right thing.

What about neopronouns? Can someone just make up a new set of words like zi / zim / zis and expect you to remember them whenever talking to or about that person?

Do you think people who previously drove into NYC are now walking from NJ? Or are they working remote? The photos of carless streets I've seen don't seem to be packed with pedestrians.

Yes, there are some places that people can walk, nearly everywhere. But GP suggested "getting them out of their cars entirely". That is not a nuanced proposal that acknowledges tradeoffs and seeks to find a balanced approach. It's saying that people should not be in cars. Tell that to a parent with 4 bags of groceries and 3 kids and see what the reaction is.

If we want better cities and towns, zealotry won't get us very far. It will get us laughed at. And I say this as someone who walks all the time and is about to do so right now.