> favoring foreigners over locals on the basis of being able to pay foreigners less only
Hypothetically, if you were a Machiavellian hiring manager:
You would also prefer a foreigner on a visa because they would have less freedom to leave the company than an equally paid employee who wasn't worried that quitting a job would risk being forced out of the country.
Also this would make the foreigner more worried about the consequences of being terminated for unsatisfactory performance.
If your reflexes are good enough, and your brakes are good enough, and your tires are good enough, that you can safely stop a bike going 20mph on a wet downhill section, then yes; you are still in control of your vehicle and operating at a safe speed. No legal problems there.
But maybe your reflexes aren't that good because you haven't had coffee yet. Or maybe your brakes are worn down. Or maybe you're on crazy thin road tires that have effectively no traction going downhill in the rain. Or some combination of all three.
The point being, if it's not physically possible for you to stop that bike in whatever time interval is required, are you really operating that vehicle safely? Probably not.
And to the extent that you're legally required to operate at a safe speed and maintain control of your vehicle, your behavior would no longer be "perfectly legal."
So 20 mph + downhill + wet roads may very well be illegal for some combinations of cyclist and bicycle but not others. It seems premature to declare that perfectly legal in all cases.
I don't think it works that way. If you add logic that says:
"here's group A, who we really want to target, and here's group B, the protected class we want to exclude. throw 10% of all impressions at group B so we're not violating federal law."
Then I think you may still be breaking the law. Because you're explicitly favoring one group over another. Whether the ratio is 100%/0% or 90%/10% probably doesn't affect the underlying legal problem.
> Why ruin it
At some point many years ago society latched on to the idea that "equal opportunity employment" was a civil right worth protecting with federal law. One of the major draws of facebook, if you happen to be an employer not wholly committed to this idea, seems to be that you kind of have a way to effectively bypass it. There are people who would equate "ruining facebook" in this scenario with "protecting fundamental civil rights," which is more important than creating a favorable environment for recruiters.
No, because the fact that I'm neither Chinese nor likely to read Chinese Daily News doesn't actually prevent me from seeing your ad.
If you posted "Help Wanted" flyers in the middle of a college campus for a part-time cashier job, some 52 year old could--in theory--be walking by the quad on his way to a Frisbee golf game.
It's when you explicitly add in logic to filter out a protected class that you may be in trouble.
My favorite resources are now all slightly dated; I haven't really kept up with the cutting edge as I've moved away from design and towards development.
Which reminds me, if you can get an employer to pay for an Egghead subscription and/or a Frontend Masters subscription as part of a training budget, both are great. Also probably worth buying on your own if work won't cover it.
The fact that his response rate when from < 5% for "applying the right way" to 22% for "maybe you upset a hiring manager" suggests his new approach, in spite of your reservations, is better for cases where you don't know anyone who can give you a warm introduction to a given company.
If anything, assuming most companies have an 'employee referral' program, emailing a random non-recruiter may have the additional advantage that, for no cost to you, someone at that company becomes incentivized for several thousand dollars to lobby for you.
Because then you can curry/partially apply functions independent of your data.
It's _not_ because it's convention everywhere else.
(I realize that only really makes sense if you know why it makes sense, so this video gives a pretty good explanation in ~30 minutes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3svKOdZijA)
Fortune's Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System That Beat the Casinos and Wall Street (2006)
If you want more background on Thorpe, or Shannon, or a layman's view of gambling and information theory, it's a fun read.