I don't agree. "Diversity" has a commonly accepted meaning which in the US at least, means everything except white men. Female or non-white are "diversity." A great example are the statements and articles from 2020 when Biden announced the most diverse ever White House Communications Team which was 100% female. Biden talked about how critical diversity was and bragged about this 100% female communications team. All the articles I read about it had things like "most diverse White House Communications Team in history" to describe it. At least from a gender perspective, I don't see how they could make it more clear that diversity == women
> "Diversity" has a commonly accepted meaning which in the US at least, means everything except white men.
Unfortunately this is common, because they do bad things with "diversity", even though diversity itself isn't bad. This isn't a very good defintion of what "diversity" should be, of course. There are many kind of diversity, and which are more important depends on the situation. But, regardless of it, diversity includes white men (and everyone else, too).
Visible diversity in skin colours, height, etc can be relevant for some things (e.g. movies that will have a lot of different people, or when doing research for a computer program that works on pictures of people (to do compression, colour correction for lighting conditions, etc)). Diversity in experience (even if all of them happen to be white men) can be relevant for many things (and is very helpful).
Of course, none of this should mean that you should deny application of other diversity because of their skin colours, height, gender, etc; they should not deny an application for such reasons. Having women in the White House Communications Team is not a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that having men is a bad thing!!! Having men is not a bad thing. One thing being good does not make the other one bad.
it is actually more common from the European and Middle Eastern context to call the (Turkish and Levantine and Arabian) Middle East "oriental"; in Israel, "oriental food" is hummus and felafel; the Orient Express train went to Istanbul. East Asian is the term for ... east Asians and of course the SE Asians you mentioned, and South Asian is the term for "India+Pakistan+" people. Central Asian is the "the -stans" and Mongolia and parts of Russia.
In the US almost no-one would say "asian" for any country west of Nepal. Sometimes they say "south-asian" for India or the surrounding countries, but even that term is only sometimes extended out to pakistan.
An Asian-owned company in US can easily get 80%+ Asian. Is that "diversity"?
This depends on how you frame. It is not diverse for the company, but it could be in the larger social context.
Putting the same thing in, say, San Francisco can be different from doing the same in Utah.
Thanks, that's an interesting idea. We have developers in the US, Europe, and South America. I have no idea what the median incomes are (or how the salary bands were calculated) but I'll check and see if there are enough consistencies to give a meaninful number.
If you're pegging salaries to the economics of the area the employee is working in, then I assume there is some sort of metric you use in order to determine how to adjust the pay range.
In giving this more thought, my basic point is that reporting a pay range is about transparency, so the thing to do is to mention what the pay range is pegged to.
So I've changed my mind about using the median income of the area as the peg, and think that perhaps cost of living for the area may be better. In the US, for instance, an income that will let you live like a king in some parts won't be enough to live in better than poverty conditions in others. The cost of living differences between areas can be enormous.
For those of us pain patients who had their opioid-based medication taken "because of the opioid epidemic" (even though we did nothing wrong and had been stable for many years or even decades) and were just told to "use cannabis" by all the non-pain patients on the internet, and when we said "cannabis doesn't work for me" and you called us liars or said we are using it wrong, this study is not a big surprise.
Meanwhile people I know have been driven to suicide as their only (legal) option to escape the pain, or spending their food money for illegal opioids that might do nothing for you at best or kill you at worst (fentanyl), instead of having reasonable lives and getting safe and known medication from a pharmacy. And these are people who did nothing wrong and hurt nobody. I suspect history is not going to look back kindly on the people who have mismanaged this in such a grotesque and inhumane way (such as politicians and bureaucrats who waved a magic wand and decided that all doctors should scale some percentage of patients down or face legal threats from the DEA or FDA and possibly loss of license), under the guise of trying to help.
1. This sounds harsh at first, but carry on it is actually on your side; But - just the typical nerd "akshully" first.
cannabis is not cbd.
cannabis does not work for everyone.
nor do opioids. (the worst part for my friend who had to take care of her friend who was dying of cancer where opioids didn't work :()
pushers can diaf (weed or others)
2. here is the meat (if there is any in my opinion).
my roomie has similar issues/fears. there is a horrible situation with how opioids are handled in this country. there are a lot of stupid people who think weed solves everything.
statistically, weed DOES help on mass level (at least so far that we've seen). That doesn't mean it will work for everyone, nor that it's a panacea, nor that we should treat people suffering chronic pain issues who are able to maintain with a proper medical regime.
neither side is "evil" and we should stop fighting each other, when there should be support for both sides out of compassion. Too often advocates (I mean weed here) end up sounding like religious zealots.
We need sane legalization and proper medicalization of both cannabinoids and opioids without the hype cycles and evil actors in both legal and illicit channels. Having family members commit suicide due to chronic pain and mental health issues, this is an important issue to me, and it's infuriating to see well meaning people on both sides end up hurting the people who need help the most with illinformed and positions that seem more to satisfy their sense of self-superiority than actually finding solutions to help people.
Wow, I'm really disappointed by that in Next.js. I love the product, and I'm sure they're being ethical about what they collect and how they track it, but I deploy this on my production servers. The idea of them doing stuff on my production instances that I'm not aware of and don't approve of is not pleasant. Not to say it's fine if it's on personal machines, because I don't think that is either, but yeah.
What I really really want is to have distros push for a centralized place for telemetry opt-out - something like /etc/telemetry.conf or ~/.config/telemetry.conf - and force all applications to either make telemetry opt-in or honor this config (perhaps patching the applications and submitting the patches upstream)
If the next.js project is collecting ip addresses together with this info they are processing personal data under GDPR. They need to do so under one of the 6 bases for processing, which in their case is either consent or legitimate interest. If consent, opt-in is required and opt-out is a violation. If legitimate interest then opt-out is alright and in fact not even required, but they have a high bar for clearing that standard, especially since opt-out is offered (which somewhat disproves the claim of legitimate interest).
I assume the project is in non-compliance and one complaint to a regulatory authority away from a proceeding that may lead to a fine if they don’t switch to an opt-in model.
In this case I mainly wanted to assuage concerns that this affected production instances.
That said, I'm not sure if consent or legitimate interest are the only potentially applicable bases. Knowing when the software breaks so you can fix it seems like it might be in the data subject's interest. And if it's not PII (which I'm not sure it's not, given that an IP address can be exposed, even if not logged), those bases aren't even necessary.
I agree that it's annoying that you can't just plug any tool into your code and hope that it does not do malicious things, but alas, that's the world we live in.
What's the scene like for music piracy nowadays? It seems like it was mostly gone. I've looked in a few different places and finding music released in the last 10 years is somewhat difficult. Do you just have to know where to look or is music piracy just dead/dying?
I've made this argument to many progressive friends, and nearly all of them replied with a variant of "you're 'bothsides'ing this" which apparently is supposed to mean your argument is invalid. That then leads to me pointing out that world isn't a clear binary and "both (major) sides" can be wrong or have problems. For some reason though, that seems to be the end of the conversation and no progress toward reaching agreement is made.
Turns out just about everybody, all around the world, loves authoritarian laws when they agree with the alleged goal, or when the psychological propaganda worked on them. If it's not the children, it's grandma, or someone else.
Turns out there are a small number of actual anti-authoritarians who have always been consistent. And then there are countless hangers-on who proclaim to be an anti-authoritarian resistance when it suits them. It's funny, the fact people co-opt it shows that they see it as a noble and worthy ideology, yet it's still one they're happy to discard the minute some talking head put on TV by a corporation tells them to be outraged.
I'd love to be put in contact with some of these true Scotsmen^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H anti-authoritarians. I need staunch moral support in my tireless, lonely fight against the soulless minions of orthodoxy who blithely kowtow to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 [0]. My perfectly fine produce deserves the embrace of the free market; it isn't up to some pencil-pusher in Washington to have the final say in how much lead there is in a tomato, it's between God, Man, and the Invisible Hand.
Are you one of the countless hangers-on who proclaim to be an anti-authoritarian resistance when it suits them?
I don't think a world where Yelp and the BBB managed the food safety ratings of restaurants would be a good one. That's a "solution", but is it a solution?
Besides, my tomatoes are certified safe by Nutr-Alert and SafeCo. SafeCo even lets me doctor the lab results myself, for a little extra! I'm still in negotiation with PureFood, but I'm sure this little speedbump will be ironed out before you know it. Iron is good for you, anyway; they don't even test for that.
>>>just about everybody, all around the world, loves authoritarian laws when they agree with the alleged goal, or when the psychological propaganda worked on them
You made a really strong claim in the post I'm quoting, and suggested that you are among those hardcore anti-authoritarians whom you lionize. But this is a real(ish) world example of that belief being challenged, and instead of explaining your principled stance, you're playin' around; you suggested you had "hit a nerve". Ah, right, I guess I'm just too emotional. Gotta stand up for what's right! No, not like that.
Of course I'm being facetious about my leaden tomatoes, but so too are you, and other readers of these words should think about how the "anti-authoritarians" actually practice their claimed stances, and where they don't.
I'm a social ignoramus so wondering: is the cyclist in this case being a "Karen"?
I have little sympathy for the driver, but it does seem like the cyclist should have reported the driver to the police rather than taking the law into their own hands.
I'm glad the cyclist did something to raise awareness. Roads are a shared space with shared responsibilities. Valid, visible licenses plates are fundamental to public accountability for drivers of automobiles. They are there for everyone to see. There is no way that driver should be able to get away with obscuring his license plate, and I think the cyclist was within his rights to uncover the obscured license plate.
In this particular case I agree with you. But how would you write this into a law that citizens and police can reference to determine whether a particular action is ok or not?
"License plates are the property of the state and must be visible, unobscured, and attached only to the vehicle to which it is registered."
If the issue is a person removing a piece of tape covering a license plate, then really nothing happened. The citizen unobscured state property which is supposed to be visible. It would be like removing a sticker from a speed limit sign, or picking up litter.
If it's some other piece of plastic attached to the car itself, well IMO that's what courts are for. That cyclist goes before a judge and maybe some technical reading of the law interprets what he did as tampering with the vehicle. Another completely reasonable interpretation though is that the cyclist was making the shared roadway that the car was on safer for everyone else.
The police weren't justified in charging him for criminal mischief and I bet you it will get dismissed, and he'll win on a false arrest claim as well. Those should be starting points for your analysis.
> I'm a social ignoramus so wondering: is the cyclist in this case being a "Karen"?
No, I'd say it's more of an act of civil disobedience meant to draw attention to the casually corrupt practices of the NYPD. The driver is likely affiliated with government or the police department. Officers have been found doing it themselves.
Yeah, and the NYPD came and responded to him because he was most likely family of a cop. Do you seriously think if you called in one of these, the cops would respond? Let alone right away? They don't respond right away for actual road incidents, let alone something like this. And then their response when they showed up? That seemed proper to you?
Ahh, good point. The act itself I think was still civil disobedience, but the intent directed at the driver. Cyclist had more faith in the police than was justified.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. If you haven't tried it, Alprazolam (Xanax) has been a miracle for panic attacks, although these days it's pretty difficult to get from doctors. Modern American society seems to have decided that any medication that can possibly be abused is evil and must not be used even if somebody could really benefit from it. If you get some though, do NOT take it all the time and build a physical dependence. Withdrawing from Benzos is worse than opioids. If you only take it occasionally though you won't have any issues.
If you are willing to take anti-depressants, definitely go.
low testosterone though, is something many men (including me) have, but practically no doctor is willing to treat. They have one enormous range of "normal" that is calculated including 80 year old men and 20 year old men in the same pool (even though testosterone levels plummet as you age), and if you aren't in the 90 year old man levels (even as a 30 year old) insanely low category they'll just tell you "you're normal" and won't do anything.
After 5 years of getting worse and worse I read something online about that, and even though my levels was right around 300 (I'm in my low 30s) the doc dismissed it. I found a doc who would treat it tho. I'm on a small dose of testosterone replacement therapy, and I am already feeling so much better I can't even believe it. It honestly fills me with rage the way the medical establishment failed me and continues to fail men in this.
