jballer

It is for exactly that reason (the expectation that one can or should take care of themself) that people use this word. They believe it's not only inoffensive and compassionate, but actually a way to solve the problem through activism: shift readers' perception of blame from away from individuals and private solutions, and demand more government bureaucracy that can placate everyone's desire to "do something about it."

Point taken, I could’ve worded my comment better

Why is water designed to be capable of drowning people?

The driver’s ability to command a car’s speed gives effect to our rights to self defense, to unrestrained movement, to due process, to choose to break the letter of the law where there are extenuating circumstances, etc.

Why are knives designed to be capable of being used as a murder weapon?

What is expected is that the applicant will tell them what they want to hear.

Top marks: convince them that you’re a true believer.

Passing marks: convince them that, while you have yet to reach gnosis, you’re eager to learn from them, make a show of it, and encourage others to do the same.

The only beneficiary of a forced apology is the authority figure's ego.

We were typing at the same time - see my other comment (sibling to yours) linking to Thiel arguing things are likely worse in hard sciences, and encouraging people to find ways to expose it.

Even so, it was a good demonstration of the point above: the peer review process in journals is not designed to keep out garbage, and is incentivized to apply less scrutiny when the subject is politically convenient.

Peter Thiel in this recent talk argues by inference that this problem is likely deeper and more pervasive in hard sciences than in the humanities. https://youtu.be/lO0KH-TgvbM?t=22m20s

Yes, Rufo is an activist, and he is transparent about his intentions and strategies.

I have a JD and passed the bar. I know that a “protected class” is for all people and all manifestations of a trait, not specific identity groups.

It was plain to me that DEI, HR, and Legal teams were not explaining the law, but rather using their position as experts-with power and good intentions-as a pretext to conduct activism through ambiguity and deniability that look virtuous to them and Orwellian to me. And that it was working, because my managers and teammates were positively convinced that “protected class” means exclusively “minority.”

I went through HR training that said “only a manager can discriminate under the law - anyone can engage in harassment.” This is insane as a statement of law, because harassment _is_ discrimination [1]. But it makes sense when they’re trying to get unwilling ICs to endure pervasive “anti-racist” discrimination that isn’t intended as harassment. Flag the misstatement to Legal and it’s “huh, we don’t know how that happened, we’ll look into it.” (Read: we already signed off on the risks of this wording.) Rinse and repeat every training cycle, where it’s a full rewrite of the module with no continuity.

One of my first questions in trying to make sense of seemingly-insane trainings was “wait, is this that ‘CRT’ thing I heard about that everyone says is just a right-wing bogeyman that doesn’t actually exist?”

And it sure is easier to just call it “CRT” and laugh it off than to argue whether it’s even a thing that happened.

If the corporate activists were transparent like Rufo, they’d say “hey, we think discrimination laws are behind the times, and we can’t just wait around for them to change. We need to combat demographic disparities by shifting our culture in hiring and conflict resolution. Here’s how we expect you to promote that, and we’re prepared to indemnify you and defend these values in court.” I expect many people would get behind that, and I would truly respect their honesty in it.

Instead they try to have it both ways, and polarize people with irreconcilable values into each thinking the company has their back.

If you’re on the receiving end of a discrimination suit and try to say you were following company policy, the lawyers will hang you out to dry: “That wasn’t company policy, it was a peer exercise with no managerial oversight or involvement. That wasn’t a required training, it just had an attendance goal (of 90%) and your manager wasn’t authorized in pushing it. As a ‘safe space,’ it wasn’t even recorded for us to know what went on there. It was led by an external contractor who is obviously not an agent of the company. Of course cis white men are a protected class, and anyone who treats them differently is illegally discriminating.”

[1] “Harassment is a form of employment discrimination” https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment

This was what a few academics hypothesized and set out to prove in what is now known as the Grievance Studies Affair [1]. Not only did they get multiple hoax papers published, they got recognized for “excellent scholarship” [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

[2] https://youtu.be/kVk9a5Jcd1k?t=3m49s

You are not taking crazy pills. This comment perfectly tracks my thoughts upon confronting similar a couple years ago. The toughest part was that I didn’t know the words to name or describe it.

I’ll +1 someone else’s recommendation of Tim Urban’s book “What’s Our Problem” - he dove into this rabbit hole and explained what he found, and it’s super approachable.

For a deeper dive, Bill Ackman very publicly sharing his own reckoning with this realization[1] and credits Christopher Rufo’s book “America’s Cultural Revolution” for helping him make sense of it[2].

[1] https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1742441534627184760

[2] https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1742687058915938532

You may be able to expose it to the client as a SMB network share. But you might also find it easier to back up over a network than to migrate a local backup into the necessary format.

How about in the original iPhone keynote, when Steve says “this cable is just here for it to work on our projector” - if you follow closely, there was no phone demo’d that day with screen on and no cable. I’m sure the main board was still external.

The initial announcement made it sound like this would be a drop-in replacement for cell tower coverage. T-Mobile contributing already-licensed spectrum, existing phones are supported, and they plan to eventually support voice and video: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/25/spacex-and-t-mobile-team-up-...

What aspect of this article is noteworthy or valuable?

It starts by minimizing people who "felt mandatory vaccinations violated their personal freedom" - a matter that is philosophical and political, and not at all scientific.

It goes on to assert that "Fauci was even falsely accused of funding research to develop the virus", citing a favorable reference and ignoring NIH ties to GoF and the days-old news that China was blocking further investigation related to a lab leak, which is now widely regarded as the most likely origin.

In sum, it looks to me like a political op-ed making a vague appeal to "scientific" expertise.

My first thought was the presence of 8” tiles may narrow it down a bit? Sounds like it’s an area on the flat bottom surface where they’re uniform in shape.

This article has the video and a screencap: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-111022a-space-shuttle-...

Direct video link: https://youtu.be/9zp-j4ysu-U

They're betting that a lawsuit would be so wildly unpopular that people would rather leave the money (and the principle) behind than face social exile.

Maybe they’re just trying to get more people to walk out voluntarily

“We avoided firing people who aren’t white” vs “we preferred firing people who are white.”

This school of thought purports to agree that harmful impact supersedes good intent.

They just refuse to recognize the individual as the ultimate minority.

This reporting about the depths the Gibsons were hurled into, just to serve as scapegoats without any evidence of wrongdoing, might change your mind.

The activists perpetuating the boycott were right about one thing: this is about way more than a single event or a single venue. https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/e765b3b3/oberlin...

That’s the obvious criticism. Not to mention ability to generate a profit beyond those concerns. Proponents would argue that this a feature, not a bug.

ESG should be boiled down.

But did they cross state lines?

Make sure to talk to the docents - many (all?) of them are engineers who worked on the hardware! Last time I was there I spoke with someone who had worked on an IMU mounted in the interstage.

Freedom is self-determination and ownership of your own survival.

Some people will make decisions you see as stupid or bad. Upside: others can't impose their decisions on you. Downside: you can't impose your decisions on others.

needs a banana for scale…

I think it's fair to care about it for precisely the reason that you don't get it. This problem doesn't get as much attention, and is more likely to get worse because of sentiment like this :(

TL;DR because the Constitution was written to protect us from the government, there is a lower bar to sue and win under both federal law and constitutional challenges.

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment protects against discrimination by States, not private actors: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/...

And note 1338 calls out that the federal laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating against individuals are instead rooted in Congress's broad latitude to regulate interstate commerce.

And here's another similar reference:

> As a general rule, the Constitution does not give power to the federal government to pass laws to protect people against private actions. For example, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal protection for all – it protects against discrimination. Under this protection, the federal government may pass laws to enforce this guarantee. However, while Congress may pass a law to regulate states or other public actors, it may not pass a law to regulate private citizens. Your police department cannot discriminate against you on account of your race. However, your neighbor in the house down the block can be as bigoted as he so desires.

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-14-01/the-qu...

I work at FB. I wouldn’t want to be working alongside people who think I’m a mercenary abdicating my moral precepts. And I wouldn’t expect that of my colleagues. So my guess is that you could get away with it easily, but you‘d be doing a disservice to yourself and your team.