TBH if we can look forward to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, at least the culture of the future will be interesting. Somehow I'm just expecting more consumerism though.
The cultures that focus on performance. Just like the West did in the past. Now, with DEI/woke agendas, the focus is definitely on something else, especially in academia.
DEI does to society what the penny pushers at Boeing did to their business: chasing the wrong objectives in search of some theoretical goal leads both to ruin. If any DEI implementation is not 'stoopid' that is only by happenstance, not due to some kernel of truth lurking behind the discriminatory revolutionary synthetic-society ideological hodgepodge that DEI is. There is no truth to be had there, only ideology.
The Ideology is common people having baked in prejeduces, not becoming aware of them, and I'm continuously baffled how so many people on HN can't see beyond their own default view.
The other Ideology is DEI usually being a pet project in corporate, more there to use for PR than to enact real change. HR will always reserve the right to fuck you over with all means available, and if that includes your race, gender or religion, they'll happily use that. This is a good extreme example: https://fandomwire.com/transgender-former-bethesda-employee-...
The fundamental observation that many kinds of prejudices that continue for generations create lasting harm for those that have been prejudiced against and their descendants is kind of self-evident.
The “woke” or DEI mindset is as far as I can tell, in origin basically about acknowledging that.
Then all sorts of things, including social media pressures, combined with grievance and resentment have led people really far astray in their attempts to “make things right”.
So I understand the visceral reaction the words can cause for some people, and partly agree.
However, the underlying observation is true, and if one for example were looking for a candidate and would, inspired by this observation, spend extra effort to advertise to certain groups, then that would be a pretty sensible DEI implementation.
Any sort of relaxed standards or claims that math is racist or something is bad however.
Racial or gender quotas are also dangerous, if they’re used it needs to be very careful and temporary.
I do feel that while this sort of stupid stuff obviously happens, is discriminatory and very bad, and should be stopped, it is probably being blown out of proportion as part of a bigger political fight.
I've never worked in the medical industry but I know many people who have, who basically told me HIPAA violations are extremely common and only enforced for a fraction of violations that actually occur. My ex used to work in medical insurance (for a very, very big company) and estimated that maybe 3% of HIPAA violations are actually enforced. I used to think HIPAA was a huge deal until she told me story after story of violations that were ignored.
I think HIPAA is the sort of thing where if you hear about it then it's taken seriously, but the overwhelming number of violations are just ignored and you never hear about them. I'd like to be wrong but unfortunately that's the information I've been fed by people more knowledgeable than me.
Walmart also has a pharmacy. I'm not an expert on the privacy laws here, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't use that information (even if it's a legally grey area).
You should read more of the comments, including at least one that explicitly states how a founder reached out on HN only to never reply via email. It's been documented as an empty gesture, aka bullshit.
Anyway I misread your previous comment, sorry about that.
This is obviously the golden standard we are trying to achieve, but how do we get there? It's theoretically impossible to treat everyone equally and apply affirmative action at the same time. I understand there is a difference between equality and equity, but I'm replying to the words you wrote.
Affirmative action may be the best solution we currently have to deal with systemic racism, but ultimately it's trying to fix prejudice with prejudice - and that is not a perfect solution. It also creates a lot of confusion because sometimes we say to treat people equally (as you say when trying to decide between hiring candidates), and other times we say we should help out the disenfranchised (such as when admitting students to schools). So where do we draw the line for when we want equality versus equity?
It is actually pretty simple (in this example anyway). If three candidates come to you with the same credentials, then do not assume one of them is the best candidate based on your interpretation of their background. You have to treat them all as equally likely candidates - interview all three. It is more work for you, but the effort is worth it, because it helps prevent the effect of possible biases.
Sure, I understand in that example what to do. But as a society, where do we draw the line? Why is it okay to apply affirmative action for selecting students but not okay when accepting employees (continuing the example from this thread)? Since we're trying to fix a systemic issue, we need a consistent response across society for it to be most effective.
My point is this is a complicated problem with no perfect solution, and people will correctly point out flaws with it both theoretically and (more relevant for this discussion) how we implement it.
This is a really good point, and I appreciate you bringing it up. What I am saying directly conflicts with affirmative action itself, so in effect I am arguing against it. I don't really have a good answer to that. Thanks for pointing it out, I guess I'll ponder that for awhile.
> I get that this is supposed to be funny, but the indirect message of getting rid of whatever doesn't make conscious sense is simplistic, and spoils the fun for me.
Do you also hate every story ever told? The point of a story is to say what matters.
> Humans are stupid, very funny.
It is funny. You should try laughing at how dumb we are. It's fun.
HN users really love to congratulate themselves for being such high IQ contrarians. Here, I'll snarkily summarize your message for you just as you did the twitter thread: let me explain this joke to you, but in a way that shows why I'm too smart to enjoy it.
> It is funny. You should try laughing at how dumb we are. It's fun.
Individual humans are stupid, probably most of the time, I don't disagree. But what this reminds me of is when people imagine stone age people as "ooga booga"-idiots, instead of human beings that might have not had access to the same technology and intellectual concepts that we can rightfully feel superior about. And as the narrator is implicitly taking sides with the alien, he too is looking down at us backward humans.
I don't know if you have ever met people who hate humanity and try to disassociate themselves the rest. They refer to us as "Humanoids" as if automata that they as superior being have the right to use and manipulate. It is a vibe similiar to this that I picked up, that I object to.
People that are too dumb to understand satire while pointing out why it's satire are indeed dumb, and should laugh at their own stupidity. But people on HN care more about being smart than self-aware, which is why this site is full of the funniest comments. He may as well be arguing about why eating babies is a bad idea after reading A Modest Proposal.
If the police are too apathetic to do their jobs, they shouldn't be getting paid at all. If they don't want to do their jobs then why don't they quit? Actions speak louder than words - they just want the paycheck without the work.
The police are the problem with police, regardless of whatever distractions they say are to blame.
It is easy to say that while sitting under the umbrella of their service, having never done even the smallest aspect of the job. The hostility towards uniform services in 2020 are paying dividends today. This is what was ordered and you get exactly what you paid for.
Not wanting to do the job. On the contrary, they want to do the job, that's why they become LEO in the first place. The problem is that leadership won't let them do the job, tying their hands and undoing the work they do (by releasing known violent criminals and other predators)
Add in the talent-drain and it gets even worse. Why would a 20 year man stay on for 5 more years to train the new guard when it is just easier to retire now and not deal with activist leadership, people spitting on you, and DAs who let your collars (the one that almost got you stabbed) walk in a few hours?
> The hostility towards uniform services in 2020 are paying dividends today. This is what was ordered and you get exactly what you paid for.
This applies in reverse to the lack of accountability and closing of ranks when police do something that's out of line. Why would police departments expect citizens to treat them with respect when enforcement of the law within their own ranks is so poor?
The problem is that crime is not being prosecuted as it should. The fault lies with the DA's office.
Any other "solution" you offer will not actually resolve the effects of the problem until that problem is solved.
Once that problem is solved, I can guarantee you will see arrests increase. Maybe you're one of the ones who don't want that?
If the person they are arresting isn't being prosecuted because the DA releases them for petty crime/breaking into cars/stealing/etc, then there is zero point to actually arresting them if the cop is going to see them on the street again in 4 hours doing the same shit again. This is a political problem, not a police problem.
If you're talking about the brief 2-year period where Boudin was DA, a) SF cop indifference long precedes that, and b) it's over, he's gone. So maybe you can drop this talking point and get a new one.
I also want to challenge the notion that putting even more people in prison is going to solve these problems. The US has the world's highest incarceration rate. And not just by a little; we're ~5x the UK, ~10x Scandinavia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera...
We've tried mass incarceration to reduce crime. It does not work. Trying it a bit harder after decades of it not working is not going to suddenly and magically produce a different result.
> then there is zero point to actually arresting them if the cop is going to see them on the street again in 4 hours doing the same shit again.
the "point" would be in part:
1. Actually doing their job. No one can blame police if the DA or a lawyer or a judge fucks up and a "bad guy" walks. We can/will blame them if they refuse to do the job they are paid for.
2. It gets a "bad guy" off the street for 4+ hours. That's 4+ hours where the people police are supposed to be protecting don't have to worry about the criminal.
3. Keeping the record. Even assuming a terrible DA is letting everyone police arrest go free, someday a non-terrible DA is going to come into office and when a case file hits their desk they're going to want to know if the person arrested has been arrested one time or 20 times over the last x number of years. They're going to want to review reports and evidence from those incidents as well.
If the police honestly believe that, they should quit and stop wasting taxpayer money. Again, actions speak louder than words. You're just buying their bullshit excuses for why they're incompetent.
