I think this comment is the 'RTFM' of employee-employer relations.
Very few things in this world are actually simple enough that this kind of dismissive attitude works. I've seen people who didn't care about giving helpful feedback and second chances, but I've also seen people who agree in spirit, but don't know how to do it well.
How would it be different if a hospital murdered X% of their worst-prognosis patients every January 1st, rather than letting X% die over the course of the year regardless of interventions?
An invalid (and thoroughly disgusting) analogy. You are conflating murder and death in a rather untidy way, and hoping that the disgust for the analogy taints that which we're making an analogy about.
If you like the theme of murder: How would it be different if a prison, rather than executing death row inmates on the first day they were legally permitted, instead delayed their executions so they could bundle them up into annual batches?
That's not the same at all, though. The prison is doing the same thing they would be doing, only on a different schedule.
Tesla has demanded that firings be carried out at the same rate as average attrition for poor performance, even though those two things have different causes and remedies. People who perform the least-well on their team but are still a (potentially large!) net benefit are generally not fired, but systems like this demand they be.
What's thoroughly disgusting is an employer summarily firing the bottom X% of their workforce, largely because the top management fucked up scheduling and needs to restore investor confidence.
This is a ridiculous analogy -- Hospital patients (for the most part) don't have control over their diseases, employees (for the most part) have control over their performance.
(Also, patients are customers of the hospital -- you should be comparing this to hospitals firing their worst doctors every year, which IMO, would be fantastic.)
The counter to a move like this is trivial, but they are banking on surprise and that you won't have any Popper to actually pull it off in your evidence on-hand.
(I haven't paid attention to policy debate in 15 years and now I wonder what kind of impact smartphones have had, or could have assuming they're not currently allowed.)
On the other hand, focusing intensely on "critical thinking and argument" is detrimental to the purported goal of debate as a civic institution - rather than a high school sport - which to educate, seek truth, and ideally come to common ground either via persuasion or compromise.
K-heavy policy is kind of the extreme opposite of that, increasingly meta arguments where no one ever has to concede even a basic model of reality to the other side. I didn't like it as a debater, and I had a dim view of it as a judge, especially from aff side.
(These frustrations had me drift towards group disco and student congress after 2.5 years in policy.)
Yes, the civic and educational goals of debate are often at odds.
I'm comfortable emphasizing the educational goals over the civic goals because I've yet to see a high school debate round weigh in on the balance of national (or even state) policy...
This is the exact opposite of my (now two decade old) experience. We had a team (honestly, one guy) who did the most ridiculous meta Ks and the LDers were almost scornful of it. Their debates were ideological and drew from a much wider range of sources, but there was virtually no meta involved.
> So essentially what they're saying is a woman would be chosen over a more highly qualified man simply because she has a vagina.
I don't have any personal experience, but I've heard many women without vaginas talk about how good Sephora has been to/for them. So don't worry, that's not happening.
> Most nurses are women, maybe we should favor men in the hiring process there?
Ah yes, the inevitable "I didn't do any researching at all but WHAT ABOUT THE NURSES" post.
Most areas in North America and Europe want more male nurses. How to attract and keep them is a major area of discussion. Many nursing scholarships are exclusively for men. Men in nursing get paid more than women in nursing.
And all this ignoring why the nursing gender imbalance exists. Here's a hint: It's not because women wanted to do the work of a doctor for a fraction of the pay.
Nice condescending post, but I'm not sure what your point is.
Here is what I believe:
> Many nursing scholarships are exclusively for men. Men in nursing get paid more than women in nursing
Both of these practices are extremely unfair and should be eliminated. A nursing job should pay the same no matter what sexual organs you have on your body.
Likewise, it is unfair to hire women in tech over men simply to fill a quota, no matter how noble your intentions are.
> Both of these practices are extremely unfair and should be eliminated.
I realize this is Hacker News where everything must be rederived from first principles every single thread, but really, these practices exist especially to eliminate situations where extremely unfair hiring practices have existed, de facto or de jure, in the past.
If you don't like what the solution looks like, tough shit. Figure out how to avoid causing similar problems in the future rather than bemoaning the necessary recompense now.
You've repeatedly posted unsubstantive and uncivil comments and are engaging in ideological flamewar. We ban accounts that do those things. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing them.
> Why Isn't the Construction of CRUD Web UI's 90% Automated?
It is, several times over.
Using SQL or some other domain-specific query language against structured records? That's the first 90%. HTTP and hypertext? That's the next 90%. CSS and modern HTML authoring? Another 90%. Web app framework with an ORM and MVC / data binding / reactive / flavor of the month? Another 90%.
Your mistake is assuming that automating 90% of it reduces the work by 90%, rather than letting you spend 10x as much time on making the bespoke parts fancier.
If the US is any example, it is the worst-trained scaredy-pants who walk up to every traffic stop with their hand on the holster, and the cops most "up to the job" who are willing to engage suspects with words, time, and humanity.
Good management is not, ironically, rocket science.