A profitable company that lacks DEI is still a success
A company that loses money but has plenty of DEI is a failure.
DEI is not the factor that determines success or failure.
It is a tool that you can use but it makes no sense as a goal or target in itself. If your customer base has some attributes that aren't reflected in the staff, maybe hiring some will help you relate. The idea that your company must match the 'diversity' of the general public (in one country) is all backward.
> If your customer base has some attributes that aren't reflected in the staff, maybe hiring some will help you relate.
How does it work? If you hire them in customer research or marketing teams, yes, it brings value in understanding the customer. If you just hire them across all departments, like IT or facilities management, what do you get?
I'm interested in a device like this for my sight impaired older relatives. They struggle with smartphones and would benefit from a single purpose device with big obvious UI elements. Not sure they are the target demographic for the R1 but I can see v3 (R3?) being pretty useful. Maybe sell a case that looks like a tea cosy and ditch the orange first though
You have to wonder if there's some 1-5% of humans who don't meet the bar of being self aware. They seem to exist as parodies of people who can't learn or reflect on past actions. Being on a continuum would make a lot of sense with the sharpest crows and dullest people maybe crossing over a bit.
Free market ideology has a lot in common with religion. Ignore all data and common sense and just embrace the idea that its true. All will make sense once the goal is achieved and until then you just have to have faith.
The idea that competition is the holy grail of progress is a similar situation. Cooperation is far superior. When two lions compete, both get covered in scratches and bites and they die of infection. When they work together they can hunt and raise a family. We are always expecting companies to compete when one look at an actual megacorp will show you how much effort they spend on avoiding competition. It's all mergers and acquisitions. Buy your competitors before they are a challenge and add them to your empire (cooperation). Why does every industry merge into a monopoly? Because its far easier to cooperate as a single unit than as separate entities sniping at each other
The pursuit of the ideal free market forces us to adopt such unnatural beliefs and behaviors, and we have to pretend they are just fine.
Politicians 'come to their senses' when they interact with normal people and are accountable to them. Public funding of elections and bans on large private donations remove the incentive to only talk to rich people. Getting money out of politics needs to be a top priority. If money isn't a factor then all voices become equal and democracy can rear its head once more.
I feel like modern presidential campaigns are just two team captains assembling as many billionaires as they can on their team. Biggest net worth team wins
Ok then and who bans large private donations? Who can take money out of politics? Politicians won’t do it as it isn’t in their interest. It’s catch 22 all the way down. In theory you’re going in the right direction but the reality is stuck somewhere else…
A site with accounts that you never want linked to your real self, or your other accounts, under any circumstances. It bucks the trend of every profile linking to every other one somewhat
That fiduciary duty needs to die/ be reimagined. It's turned corporations into one dimensional money makers. Profit at any cost. You should make money in order to achieve your goals, not just to set the high score for making money.
It's way too easy for hostile shareholders to force companies to do things that the workers, even CEO level workers, don't want to do.
Agreed. Setting a boundary invites people to point out that nothing happened the second that boundary was crossed. Maybe defining zones with consequences attached might be more meaningful so we can evaluate which cost is preferred - solving the problem or living with it.
> Setting a boundary invites people to point out that nothing happened the second that boundary was crossed.
This problem is unsolvable by changing terminology because it's rooted in denial and misinformation.
> Maybe defining zones with consequences attached might be more meaningful so we can evaluate which cost is preferred - solving the problem or living with it.
How is this not identical to setting boundaries? A zone is a bounded area.
As for the preferred cost - the only correct response is solving the problem. The alternative is not "live with it", it's failure and suffering. Only when we're in the failure state does the choice become "live with it [and suffer]" or "die".
You seem to have internalized the suicidal narrative that addressing climate change is a tax on our economy, when in fact it's just a different and more productive way to spend money that we're already spending.
I'm just saying that you can link certain zones to specific outcomes. If we move into a new zone we haven't crossed the boundary (which feels final and irreversible), we are in a new zone with new consequences. We can leave that zone as well and change the outcome.
Obviously I'm in favour of fixing the problems but I'm not the majority of elected officials or their climate denying donors. You need to frame it in a way that they can act on it hence the choice.
I wonder if Google could build some custom variants of their search. That way they can use their underlying tech but reskin it to bias towards different things - eg favor local results, or scholarly, short form, or video/audio/text. Apply a lens or filter to results so we aren't all being served the same bland concoction of links.
Sure AI could do this on a personal level but communities are built around shared experiences so we might see some major labelled variants emerge that shape new communities.
Each could even have an internal product owner trying to beat the others. Its a simulation of competition which might drive some innovation from Google once again (assuming no real competition is breaking through that market domination anytime soon)
The internet is the way it is largely because of Google's algorithm and people shaping their content to appease it. If they allowed several to exist, we could have several internets also existing without the need for a new walled garden.
As for your first question, they do that with local search.
But, also as an answer to your first question, no, there is no money in this that will show up on the next quarters income sheet.
As it is, the biggest way to deal with Google is regulations of breaking up search engines and ad networks. As long as Google controls the money making on the internet they'll be near unbeatable.
A company that loses money but has plenty of DEI is a failure.
DEI is not the factor that determines success or failure.
It is a tool that you can use but it makes no sense as a goal or target in itself. If your customer base has some attributes that aren't reflected in the staff, maybe hiring some will help you relate. The idea that your company must match the 'diversity' of the general public (in one country) is all backward.