Nobody inside the org cares about gender ratios, but they do have to react to people outside of the org who care a whole lot.

It's easier to explain reality than to try and change it.

Idk, I've read b2b contracts that have demands similar to this. They arent explicit, its softer.

I have as well, but I'm more of a cynic. Usually you can trace requirements back to either DEI dependent funding or government contract requirements. Less common is an attempt to market or build positive brand association by making a public commitment. With the occasional case where one individual uses their position in a company to sneak their personal agenda in.

Mostly the behaviour is determined by tangible external benefits rather than any kind of real belief that gender ratios should be acknowledged.

Any kind of real physical restrictions will initially be geofenced to grade seperated roads.

First the speed limiter, then massive fines for speeding, then limited registration for legacy cars.

As long as possible might be shorter than you would like.

I can't think of any country that limits registration of older cars, can you?

> Roads are physical easy to understand

???

Yes, roads require less 'active upkeep', an austerity government might stop funding transit but they will not close roads. However, this is more of a feature of the supposed 'independence' of car transport, not 'easy to understand'.

In addition, defunding transit would be a lot harder and weirder if it is in a form that requires actual infrastructure (metro, train, tram) rather than some stops and a schedule (bus). That's one potential reason to trust bus transit projects less.

Do keep in mind that roads aren't free after construction either; they typically require pretty significant upkeep (especially things like repaving, but also e.g. traffic signals).

I have seen many public transport systems privatised and worsened over time; since there are many ways to play with funding and quality, you can hide a whole lot of bullshit. Frequency, hours, cleaning, security, ticket price, and maintenance... It can be unclear why a service is declining or who is accountable. That's what I mean by easier to understand.

Roads are public in a way that introducing a toll on an existing road is not politically viable, and maintenance issues are easier to spot.

From my experience most people have no understanding of how road maintenance works. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard people say they refuse to pay more taxes, after all they won’t even fix the potholes in our roads!

Kind of funny to see a comment that completely ignores the idea of distributions and outliers in a thread talking about math.

Concrete stairwells are supposed to double as refuges, if you can't climb.

Also devices that allow easier access to an apartment are more acceptable in Japan. In the US there is a much greater need for security oriented design.

If you believe what you see on television shows set in New York, fire escapes - ladders from balconies down to the ground - are common in New York. Which would make it unnecessary to explain why they aren't used.

When you value a business, part of it is brand and people's habits. The new owners are betting that they can trade in that value for cash, by selling a crap lesser product under the old name, and that this will return faster than a sustainable business.

It's not obviously bad from a finance point, it's just significantly shorter term thinking than the original owner.

Weird take... AI art is cheap or free, but that doesn't mean anything at all in relation to how you treat the person providing the service.

You have failed to understand that the value of the service is fundamentally different, providing open source software costs a human effort.

Providing art no longer requires the same amount of human effort, if AI is acceptable, so it's not at all comparable.

What would you say to someone who responds that AI art only exists because of training data stolen from unpaid artists?

This completely ignores higher order effects, if you can't employ someone to do a task at a wage that makes profit, it creates conditions where capital investment in innovation and labour multiplication makes more sense.

It never makes sense to import someone who has less earning potential than any other candidate; at least not in a long term context (it makes plenty of sense for a current business for their own short term profit).

Fair is an odd word here, the system should work for the greatest benefit for Americans.

I think a wage threshold and weighting would be best, but others think a controlled random mixing of labour markets is better for the overall economy.