3
points
teractiveodular
Joined 1,962 karma
- teractiveodularThey don't. You now subscribe to Copilot 365 or whatever the hell Office is called today for the low, low price of $12.99 per month for the rest of your life.
- Here's a strawman: White people are more likely to diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). If people with ASD are more likely to opt for CS degrees, by induction we'll have more white people in CS.
- Such as? If a specific culture puts women off studying CS, than that culture is sexist, no?
- > In our case, the recruitment team started by only headhunting target candidates. Once we exhausted that pool, they would headhunt any candidate.
"Target candidate" = those in minority groups, yes?
- You're assuming there is no genetic component whatsoever to human skills and interests, and the only reason women are not studying computer science/car repair/welding is sexism.
- But what if the poor people have the wrong skin color?
- The referenced Google diversity reports spell out the percentages of "Asian+, Black+, Latinx+, Native American+ and White+" (their terms).
https://about.google/belonging/diversity-annual-report/2023/
- Flights are operable by 1 person, and this is in fact the normal state of affairs in general aviation. The second person on commercial aircraft is there mostly for redundancy, although obviously having another pair of hands makes things easier.
- It's not performative outrage, it's a statement of fact. You didn't merely widen the net, you spearfished candidates of the right race and ignored those of the wrong ones. Regardless of your intentions, how is that not racist?
- The one positive "DEI" thing you can do without lowering the bar is to widen the net: look harder for qualified candidates in places where you didn't look before.
- This article is not talking about COVID, it's talking about the absurd changes to the hiring process that disadvantaged qualified candidates in favor of people who said science was their worst subject in high school (15 points). How could this not have an impact on hiring?
- They wouldn't mind it, but Chinese EV & solar panel production volumes are already completely mind-boggling, they'll keep doing just fine without the US.
- It's down 7% in after-hours trading as I type this.
- Results: https://abc.xyz/assets/91/b3/3f9213d14ce3ae27e1038e01a0e0/20...
10-Q: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204424...
All the numbers look pretty good at first glance (revenues up 15% YoY from $70B to $81B, operating income up from $17B/25% margin to $25/32% margin), EPS up from $1.17 to $1.89), but obviously Wall Street expected even more so now the stock is tanking.
- A couple of counterexamples from a declining demographic is not much to flatly deny the article's entire case.
There are vast teams of marketers and data scientists hard at work making things like food and social media more appealing and addictive. Of course more people are, on average, going to get more addicted to them, even if a few fish have the willpower to swim against the tide or the money to buy the chemicals to do it instead.
- The CDC instruction applies only to researchers actually employed by the CDC (read: the government).
Again, I don't like this any more than you do, but your employer generally does get to dictate what you do and say at work.
- Would you like to offer a substantive critique of any of the highlighted cases?
And for what it's worth, here's a later highlighted case where FIRE defended a professor who had been told to stop teaching, and I quote, "woke shit" like gender studies at a state university.
https://www.thefire.org/cases/valdosta-state-university-prof...