>There are advantages to diversity by itself. These have been well documented. So setting aside any concern about excluded groups, it was a good business decision to aim for a diverse workforce.
They wanted to have a diverse workforce, and came up with an excuse for it post-hoc. The best defense I've seen of this is that diverse opinions are good for business. Of course, hiring racially diverse people while being antagonistic towards those with different ways of thinking does little to increase diversity of thought.
>But taking those concerns up again, almost no one perceives their own biases as biases.
Says the pot to the kettle. The way to prevent bias is to come up with objective factors to evaluate people based on, not intentionally injecting bias of your own.
>If you are crossing a river and the wind blows you off course, you don't head to your goal but to the side. The net result is that you reach your goal. The diversity targets are just tacking against the wind.
They are the source. A journo could write an article and mention distrowatch as where they got their information from. If you don't trust them - great, you can do your own research.
> I wonder what the evidence for it is
Maybe "Any posts mentioning DistroWatch and multiple groups associated with Linux and Linux discussions have either been shut down or had many of their posts removed" and "We've been hearing all week from readers who say they can no longer post about Linux on Facebook or share links to DistroWatch. Some people have reported their accounts have been locked or limited for posting about Linux"
What do you think evidence consists of if not that?
I don't think we should be attempting to force parenthood on children in order to solve birthrates. Maybe you should have to show proof of being a child to access porn? Might work.
a. the vast majority of people are neither addicted to porn nor lacking in ability to form relationships. if that has happened to some people they are a minority
b. pornhub has no monopoly over the internet porn industry. insofar as those men did get so addicted, that would have happened regardless of pornhub existing.
The phrasing doesn't necessarily imply that pornhub isn't the entity blocking it, but it does leave it for the reader to interpret according to their biases. Also, one might argue that the legislation in being overly onerous is in fact what is causing the block, and hence implying that the states themselves are blocking pornhub is at least partially correcy.
The change was mostly procedural, removing apis that were old and replacing them with more modern variants. Gorhill decided to take the opportunity to make a political stand against chrome. Good for him I guess. Given the popular sentiment against google, there was no serious pushback against his stand, including from the independent media and so on. But a google engineer would presumably know the "both sides" take on the subject, and hence not see it as reflecting especially poorly on google.
Whereas a normal extension maintainer would transparently update their extension to a new API, removing any features that could no longer be supported, gorhill elected to let the old extension go out of support, and replace it with a similarly named extension under the same organization. The features in the old extension removed in the new one were minor to non-existent. The main worry was originally that they wouldn't be able to cram all the network filtering rules they needed into the limited number that were permitted. However I believe this issue was mostly worked around.
The rest of the issues raised were a masterstroke of politiking on gorhill's part. Basically, google's justification for this removing of apis business was in part to increase privacy/security. Such improvement of course could only arrive if extensions didn't demand broad permission to see all the data on every page a user visits. So gorhill designed the new "ublock origin lite" around not needing to demand this permission. Of course, such an extension necessarily must have much more limited features than the original "ublock origin". Gorhill then presented this loss in functionality as somehow a necessary casualty of the "Mv3" upgrade.
Of course, the original uB0 extension demanded the same broad permission, so this loss in functionality wasn't really a casualty of the new manifest version. Rather, it was an accusation by gorhill against google that their justification for bumping the version was false. The new uB0l extension incidentally supports a mode that demands this broad permission, so in fact the total amount of lost functionality is practically non-existent. The result is that everyone has the opportunity to flame google for their seeming anti-user behaviour. However, to a google engineer this would presumably come across as unfair, and they would presumably feel as if they were being targeted.
> Is the student into robotics? Most likely only a STEM teacher would be into robotics, which reduces the number of teachers to meet to find a mentor. See a person wearing a shirt for a band you like, more passive intellectual filtering to find a friend and reduce the number of people to interaction with to find a friend. Into beat-boxing, perform at the school talent show and communicate to all 200 and 5000 students at once. You still might be the only one into beat-boxing though. More Intellectual filtering that go against "having to meet everyone to find a friend or mentor" argument.
I would say that running this "intellectual sorting" over schools themselves is far more productive then running it over individuals in a school. Suppose you find a really good friend at a school, who happens to not share any of your classes; or a mentor who happens to not teach any of your requirements. Going to a school in which most people have already passed a basic filter for compatibility would leave you far better off than running that filter over every person in a school. Like having a shoe store only for people with large feet.
> Where are you more likely to find a mentor, in a school with 10 teachers or 200 teachers? Where are you more likely to find a friend, in a school with 50 or 5000 people?
This is such nonsense. Beyond a certain (very low) number, the number of people at the school doesn't help you with those things, because you can only meet so many people. You have classes with a fixed number of teachers, and a fixed number of students in each class. Furthermore, it's usually roughly the same cohort in each class. So even at a school of 5000 people, you only productively meet a small fraction anyways. Besides that, the premise is seemingly that a good school is one where you can find a maximally good mentor and friend. But schools are for teaching things, so ensuring you can find a slightly better mentor or friend at best marginally improves the school as a school. If the charter school is better than a public school in some other dimension, then that will surely overshadow this miniscule effect.
You've seemingly borrowed an argument for larger cities and applied it to schools without understanding it. If I am lacking something in a small town, I either put up with it, or move to another town where I will surely lack something else. If I lack something at a school, I have the choice to switch schools to one where I am better provided for (assuming I'm given that option) or find something to supplement that lack outside of school (say a club, sports team, etc).
The affordable care act is the most reasonable path from the current american system to a system on par with other first world countries. This especially given the sort of republican opposition it's liable to face. It's current form is due in substantial part to the republicans gutting it, so you can't really blame the dems for it not working very well.
This is, in some sense, calculus. Look at 0z, which is 0/0, which calculus treats with l'hopitals rule. Another way of looking at it is to say that 0 is dt, then z is 1/dt. Clearly we can have different 0s, so we might name another dx, then take dx/dt, which is an arbitrary derivative.
Other people are similarly reading and reacting to your rhetoric. Lying about what your opponents say, regardless of what you think it might evolve into, does not reflect well on you.