A few observations. I never got the confirmation email and my account. The free one doesn’t seem to do anything except for allowing me to journal, but I can’t see the journal. I can’t go into the birthdate. I can’t edit my profile? This seems to be a web form with prompts? Where’s the verification email? Why can’t I change my birthdate? Why is the app totally not working as expected. How do you see the journal entries that you entered granted it’s 641 in the morning here but this is when I should be able to use an easy journaling app about what I want to do today also just note that questions like how do you want to show up in the world today are a bit flimsy. This is just my opinion of course, but why not just ask what are your goals and things like that my two cents ticket for what it’s worth everybody’s got an opinion.
Hey, thank you very much for trying the app, it means a lot.
1- There is no automatic email confirmation for now, I verify the accounts manually and I can do that today.
2- The free can do everything but is just for 7 days, then the subscription is required.
About the other things, I think I can work on that onboarding experience to make it better, definetly, but I do want to touch on that journal question being "flimsy". I get what you are saying and I feel the same. The reason is those were made with an LLM based on some personal questions I had, but I hope in the future we could have a good list of good prompts qurated by the community. For me nothing like a good prompt, I feel special when someone wants me to express something, but anyway, I can do a cleanup there to avoid the more weird prompts you know. Thanks again.
Investor Portal Software Solutions from Investor Portal Pro are custom, built on customer AWS accounts, and based on a toolkit. We'll soon be launching a SaaS version, but not sure I want the pricing pages like these. I want a single price point (per user) that takes people right into the software after paying.
Simplicity is tough, and it's hard to understand which option would be more affordable without a pricing 'calculator'.
Here's our current pricing page (for the on-prem) version
As a German married to a Korean, it was a definite upgrade to my Sauerkraut.
Jokes aside, the kimchi fridge is indeed quite common in Korea, and the household justification is typically that you don't want the kimchi's aroma to interact with all your other refrigerated food supply.
Especially the older generation makes kimchi infrequently in large batches, and it's very common to share the fruits of the labor among the different households in the family (you often leave with it on family visits), so it's routinely well stocked with the remains of various batches.
I'm most familiar with the single or double drawer types, integrated into the more modern kitchen aisles, making it easy to tower above and access the tubs/jars/containers. Since you usually wind up having one anyway, you're also gonna use it.
It's also the OG kimchi as Koreans didn't have red peppers until the Columbian Exchange (but have been preserving vegetable via brines since the Three Kingdoms era)!
If you can't eat normal kimchi due to spiciness, there are variants of kimchi that aren't spicy and resemble sauerkraut or doesn't even include cabbage at all.
So, more "black and brown" people (your words not mine), and less, what, White and Yellow and Red people and Purple people? = success? That sounds a bit racist to me, just saying.
In DEI parlance, black and brown refers to African-Americans and Latinos, although, curiously they also do accept African H1B visa holders in this group, despite them typically having high education, wealth from home, etc.
When I have read writings on DEI, they usually talk about "African-Americans," a term historically used to refer to the descendants of slavery. Which writings by DEI professionals and experts have you read that say African H1B visa holders should be included in DEI initiatives?
> Which writings by DEI professionals and experts have you read ...
None. I'm a third party HN commentator that dropped in to address the incorrect assertion that the sentence in question contained a "they" with no referent.
I have six decades of reading, writing, and speaking Commonwealth English and four or so with American English and felt the user who asked could use the grammar assist.
But they are included. Because the companies talk about demographics and include "black" as one of those. A group which mixes African-Americans and African immigrants together
Which population? FB hires from
everywhere in the world and sponsors visas. Having an employee base that’s 30% Chinese and 30% indian should thus be the goal.
You are explicitly considering a man's race for something that is irrelevant to that consideration, in this case to answer whether to hire/admit them.
You must consider a man's race if this concerns something relevant to that consideration such as their medical history. This is not one of them; there are actually very few instances where asking a man's race is necessary.
The person above was just saying that having a closer balance of hires to the greater population was a good thing. They didn't talk about how companies got there. We shouldn't just assume they got there by using race while deciding whether to hire or not. Maybe they did something else, or maybe they found some existing racism in hiring decisions and removed it.
The only way to change employee racial composition is to hire and terminate on a racial basis. The only way to force that composition to mirror social composition is to do so explicitly and strictly on racial basis.
A lot of factors go into proper hiring and terminations, most significantly the merits of the individual concerned. Such factors will lead to an employee racial composition that might not mirror that of social composition.
Certain hiring practices like favoring women for flight attendants and black men for basketball teams should be terminated with extreme prejudice, but to force employee racial composition and specifically that one way or any other is racism.
> The only way to change employee racial composition is to hire and terminate on a racial basis
That's ludicrous. If I hire only from Harvard, but then I start hiring from state schools as well, the employee racial composition is highly likely to change.
But is the goal to hire from certain schools or to hire certain races?
The axiom presented is that the employee composition must mirror the surrounding social composition, ergo you are hiring for racial reasons because you must set quotas and then hire based upon satisfying (and not exceeding) those quotas.
As an example, if the social composition is composed of 40% Earthlings, 30% Martians, 20% Venusians, and 10% Mercurians and your workforce consists of 10 men: You cannot ever hire more than 4 Earthlings or 3 Martians or 2 Venusians or 1 Mercurian and must refuse or terminate any excess. If you cannot hire even 1 Mercurian at all you arguably can't hire anyone.
But the idea of quotas is something you pulled out of nowhere. It was not part of the conversation until you showed up.
It's a strawman.
Also the post up above was talking about statistics with error bars a thousand people wide. The idea of having a demographic match with 10 employees is... also a strawman.
I agree life is seldom as simple as the examples, the small numbers are just for sake of brevity.
In any case, none of that takes away from the crux of this conversation that programmes like mirroring surrounding demographics and others are discriminatory and have no place in free and civilized societies today.
It's a good idea to measure the imbalance, and sometimes it's a good idea to try to do something to work against it. It requires a lot of care, but it's not inherently wrong. When there are a bunch of bad actors, everyone else trying to be completely neutral leaves things quite unbalanced.
>c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate (see ARTICULATE entry 1 sense 1a) speech and abstract reasoning, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family
