The whole “diversity industry” (and it is a huge industry) is based on a lie... that “diversity” improves a company’s performance. The research on this is so shaky with so much empirical evidence to the contrary, and everyone knows it, which is why companies are trying to do nothing more than “lip service.”
This is something I've wondered about a lot as well. Look at any large company in the world, then look at how diverse they are. Probably isn't much of a correlation between one and the other.
Looking at companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook and what not, you'd suspect any effects from having a diverse workforce are massively outweighed by other factors like selling a product/service more people want, good product design, price, marketing efforts, etc.
> that “diversity” improves a company’s performance.
Hm - well, I agree that there's a lie floating around, but I don't think that's quite the lie in play. More often what they say is that you're hurting yourself by turning away qualified candidates based on their race/geneder/sexual orientation/whatever they're not seeing as many of as they think they ought to be. The problem is that, while this is strictly true, there's no evidence that qualified people of _x_ race/gender/sexual orientation are actually being turned away. For all the digital ink that's been virtually spilled on tech and diversity, I have yet to see _anybody_ claim, even anecdotally, that they, themselves are qualified members of diversity group _x_ but are unable to find employment. Instead, they express bewilderment that although they have no trouble finding employment, they don't see enough other members of group _x_... which they presume must be because all of the other ones are being turned away by prejudiced hiring managers.
This was always a fun duck idea made mainly to serve Central Valley towns whose population could not justify such an expensive boondoggle. Glad to see Newsom speak some truth and put an end to this lunacy.
It's about as meaningful as "a couple that had a red toothbrush," unless you want to make something from a word as nebulous as 'Asian.'
There's no life to the story, it's to vague to even parse. Who was eavesdropping on who? Both on each other? A mutually distrustful relationship? How much was the pay, what were the stipulations? Does 'duo' imply they work together?
Some details are merely descriptive. Others have a history of being associated with discrimination in some form.
Unless race is relevant to the story, it should be omitted. I’m sure there are plenty of other details about the couple that could be mentioned if you need to spice up the story.
My working definition of religion is a system that produces easy answers to tough questions. These tough questions can eat away at a person so religion has an important “damping” function in a society, especially with the 90% of the population who need an answer to these questions to stay mentally healrhy
When I read deep religious thinkers works, I find that those questions are only easily answered by those who didn't scratched the surface. The honest ones are full of doubts.
People use religion for the purpose of getting easy answers, but does it mean that the purpose of religion is to give easy answers to people ?
Religion can be seen as a cultural phenomenom, or a tool, and it doesn't look like the same thing at all depending which you choose.
I'm pretty sure that any tool you give to humans, they will turn it into a cultural phenomenom.
> My working definition of religion is a system that produces easy answers to tough questions
Wow, this is really useful. It implies that people who believe in religions, are people who prefer to have an answer, even if it's wrong (even obviously so), rather than be in the ambigous and confusing limbo state of seeking for the correct answer.
Similar to how Nigerian Princes intentionally write bad grammar in order to target low-educated people who are more easily scammed.
Google pays enough technical women enough they are probably already getting that. This is more like the 27 year old associate property manager gets to stay on the path to promotion, or the $15/h hairdresser not having to have a near zero income for the 3 years her two kids are young.
My values don’t contain anything about Taiwan. I’ll call whatever you want because I don’t think I have nearly enough contextual knowledge to know who is “right” and “wrong” in that conflict.
It is oppressive that the US government won't let free people do business with people in Iran and Cuba, but it's not the same thing as banning people from acknowledging that those places exist.
I can’t wrap my head around the idea that people don’t think it’s “obvious” that the ROC and the PRC are different countries. Neither side has exercised control over the others territory in almost 70 years. In fact the PRC has _never_ controlled Taiwan and the other territories under control of the ROC.
What reasoning would support the idea that the PRC represents a legitimate government and not the ROC?
yep, the whole story it's actually reversed and ROC has the proper government for all China, PRC gov are just revolutionaries/separatists, not vice versa, sadly ROC don't have good cards in hand to play this game
No the ROC isn’t the proper government of “all China”. The ROC is the proper government of Taiwan, Kinmen, etc. The PRC is the proper government of the mainland. There is no “one China” the encompasses both regions. That’s just a fiction promoted by both sides in attempt to legitimize military aggression.
Regardless of any country's history, it is not reasonable to ban people from selling software that acknowledges the existence of a country. Even if that country does not exist.
Even if you don't take a stand on whether Taiwan is a real country or not, it is wrong to ban people from selling software that purports that Taiwan is a real country. How is this not obvious?
Basically from my understanding: at the fall of the last Chinese dynasty in 1912 a republic was created. Then after the communists took power, that republic exiled to Taiwan, that was in 1949. Current day China is still trying to eradicate that original republic.
You have a vast amount of knowledge at your fingertips. There is a difference between a dystopian authoritarian country like China, with "reintegration" camps for Uighurs and "re-education" camps for people who speaks out against the single-party system - and Taiwan, which doesn't.
There is no both sides, and saying there is is incredibly disingenuous.
My friend "applied," knowing full well it was a scam. He said that he regretted nothing, as it allowed him to fantasize about the journey more concretely. So perhaps it served the same function as pornography.
I think it would be if more people realized you can have an iTunes account without a credit card attached. They seem to make it harder with every UX change to set up, but if you don’t have a payment method you can’t give them a penny.
The article is about app and in-app purchases that Apple gets a cut from. Lyft and Uber are in different category and don't pay any fees to Apple on ride purchases.
Just to add a bit of info... in-app purchases are required for things like extra functionality. On the other hand, if you’re using the app as a gateway to a service that is provided outside of the app, you can process payment outside the app. Anyone who can reasonably make this argument tends to do so, as Apple charges ~30% of everything that goes through in-app purchases.
