It'd be more like if Lichess were funded by Nazi gold or something, and the person funding it was trying to do so because they want you to forget they stole a ton of Nazi gold.
PGA isn't behaving this way for moral reasons, but it's an extra component to that situation which makes this harder to analogize.
I dunno how successful this is, but when I get spam called, I do what I can to reach a person and then say, "Put me on the do not call list, please!" and (possibly) as a result, I really don't get as many of these spam calls as it sounds like folks here are getting.
This WILL NOT work. The best thing you can do is sign up for the FCC DNC list. It'll take a month but then after that every legal spam call will stop.
The problem with your method is that spammers call phones just to see if they pick up. This then confirms an active number that they maintain in their lists. This can be done legally because technically calling and hanging up and never calling again (from the same number) isn't spam. So just don't answer.
Agreed, what I have done is just not answer my phone unless they are in my contact list. I also do not share my cellphone number with anyone. Seems like everyone wants it these days and the pandemic made it worse, so I have a Google Voice number for people who insist on having a number.
The only phone number that gets spam calls anymore is that Google Voice number.
For all other numbers, the calls have virtually stopped.
It does not work. I tried to take the approach of wasting their time by asking for their name and what not, but they are also getting trained to cut such calls off quite fast.
Oh yeah, the feeling of being swamped is really the feeling of being unable to "fail" at some stuff (which is ultimately just another way to look at prioritization; you "fail" at the stuff you don't prioritize, in some sense).
To be good at working in a startup, you have to be okay "failing". Could you be working on That One Feature That Will Finally Fit The Market? Yeah, but you really should eat and work out instead, maybe watch a few episodes of that TV show you like because a healthy/happy you is better than a "swamped" drained you for the company.
Being overly confident in yourself is a hack to reach this state, BTW.
Contrast it with my experience where my wife was 100% supportive of me taking multiple months of not working at all and not really looking to recover from my time at my previous employer.
I think you're presupposing that your experience is universal. I felt refreshed and reinvigorated when I started my new job, not panicked and depressed, because I had created for myself a solid support structure for such eventualities (financially and socially).
I would argue that the real key here is preparation; if you can set yourself up not to be harmed by something like a lay off, you will be much more likely to go through it in a positive way than if you leave it up to fate to decide how and when you experience such a potentially negative event.
It is not racism, as for it to be racist it would have to support the idea that people of one race are inherently superior in some form or another to another race.
Adjusting representation is not making any claim whatsoever about ability around members of any race, it's attempting to adjust for those kinds of claims that have already (falsely) been made.
Nobody who is implementing these policies in any of these Ivy League schools thinks Asian students are smarter or that non-Asian students are dumber.
>as for it to be racist you would have to believe that people of a certain race are inherently superior in some form or another.
I don't think that's the standard definition, I think treating people differently because of their race is usually considered racist, even if the discrimination is of the "separate but equal" variety. Especially if the difference in treatment is due to stereotypes and prejudices.
>People want different treatment as a result of their different values and life experiences that they gather from their cultures
Yes exactly. A white kid adopted by someone in a village in Kenya isn't going to want to be treated like an Englishman, and a black kid who grew up his whole life in a Montana country town full of white people with white parents (probably) doesn't want to be treated differently than the rest of the people in the town even though he's an entirely different color. "Colorblind" is a good policy in these circumstances.
If someone wants to be treated differently purely on their color I will wait for them to tell me (individually tell me, not someone else of the same color to tell me) and presume not otherwise.
> Racism is the belief that one race is superior in some way or another
What's going on is discriminating and prejudicing on the basis of race.
We can call that racism or anti-racism or peanuts & bananas, it doesn't change what the thing is. A person being advantaged or disadvantaged, being treated differently, on the basis of the race, something they had no control over nor consent to.
> Everyone is better off if we live in a society where you can do well and be rewarded for it, which is what affirmative action supports
Affirmative action is sins of they father by another name. It's judging people, and sending the message that it is okay--even righteous--to judge people not on who they are, but on from whom they are born.
It also creates justified racial animus between ethnic groups anew, and does so in a motivating way: by harming, or even just creating the perception of harming, their children.
> Why would you want to make education more elite?
Because we're defining an elite based on a mangled construction, where the kids of an Angolan dictator are given precedence over those of a refugee in the name of fairness. That's the construct of race. Meanwhile, the descendants of the slave owners get admitted on legacy.
The fact that you think the source of the racial discrimination is college admissions and not centuries of violence and hatred is sad, but unsurprising.
You are not immune to history, what happened before you were born does matter, and it effects/hurts people all the time. Affirmative Actions is just one way we can try and figure out how to heal that immense damage. It's not the only thing we can do, but it is something, and it can be done in a way that helps everyone.
> the source of the racial discrimination is college admissions and not centuries of violence and hatred is sad
They're both acts of prejudice on the basis of race. There's a view that there is some dimension of racism where racism in "one" direction can be negated by racism in the "other" direction. But this relies on a stable concept of race across time and space, which doesn't exist, because people mix and move and change how they identify.
> what happened before you were born does matter
I wasn't born in America. Neither were my Asian friends. Isn't it convenient that they're asked to bear the burden of America's heritage of slavery?
You're not bearing any burden, as there are a lot of schools who aren't Yale that will accept you. This isn't the case for those who are benefiting from Affirmative Action.
For some, Yale is their only shot, due to the inherently racist nature of American society. Those people should get priority over people for whom this isn't the case.
If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the racists in American society that make these programs necessary. If it weren't for the objective fact that many minority groups in the US suffer on nearly every level when compared to others, these programs wouldn't be needed, but they do so they are.
> not bearing any burden, as there are a lot of schools who aren't Yale that will accept you. This isn't the case for those who are benefiting from Affirmative Action.
I went to a state school on a merit scholarship, so I'm pretty far outside direct impact from these decisions.
If someone thinks their only chance of going to college is Yale, they're wrong. Fixing that lack of institutional knowledge makes more sense than twisting the scales to fit a race-based ideology. (To the degree I bear indirect burden, it's in living in a society that seeks to create a racial hierarchy. Also, being young enough that the obviously predictable backlash will be a problem in my lifetime.)
We have a legacy of wrongs against Black Americans. It's on all of us, including those who didn't commit the atrocities but benefit from the system built on them, to address that. Creating racial pools in college admissions is not the way.
> If someone thinks their only chance of going to college is Yale, they're wrong.
They're not wrong, that's literally the lived experience of many, many folks. This is exactly the problem; you're not taking the perspective of people who actually are discriminated against in America.
And I didn't say "of going to college". This isn't just about college, it's about opportunities for a high degree of success in a person's life. Yale doesn't represent "college" it represents "prestigious college that will open doors for the rest of their life".
Some folks get one of those shots. Yale doesn't represent that to you, but it represents that to some folks, and if they're qualified for admittance, it makes perfect sense to prefer them over people who will get other shots at a highly successful life.
> This isn't just about college, it's about opportunities for a high degree of success in a person's life. Yale doesn't represent "college" it represents "prestigious college that will open doors for the rest of their life".
Why is Yale the only shot for the child of a wealthy, well-connected person of one race but not the poor, unconnected child of another?
> makes perfect sense to prefer them over people who will get other shots at a highly successful life
This is the assumption that rightfully grinds people. Why do we assume because someone is Asian they will not face those barriers? And again, how convenient that the actual descendants of slave traders have reserved seats, too, at these prestigious institutions.
Yale is often the only shot at a high level of success for poorer, less educated racial groups. I'm not sure you're understanding me if you believe what I'm saying is designed to support wealthy, well-connected people generally.
And there is no assumption about Asian success, there's cold, hard data about the comparative lack of discrimination in academia and in life outcomes.
But it does sound like you're laser focusing here on Asian kids, and ignoring the many white kids who are also being bumped out of these programs. Odd...
> A person should be advantaged on the basis of their race
I read your entire comment, and understand that it contains more nuance than the first statement - but that does not diminish the fact that this position is explicitly racist.
You can either want people to be treated without regard for their race, or you can try to use racist policies to "push the needle the other direction". They are mutually exclusive perspectives.
It's not racist as it does not support the idea that one race is superior or inferior to another.
A "racist" idea would be that one race deserves more than another because of some inherent flaw or virtue.
The idea of affirmative action is the objective fact that racist policies have already been created, and to decide to "go colorblind" would be de facto support for those racist policies that are already in place.
The position you quoted is explicitly antiracist, because it suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences.
The word 'racist' is overloaded and refers to multiple different things. 'One race is superior to another' is a racist belief.
Discriminating based on race is a racist action.
Fixing an inequity is not racist, the racism is the creation of the inequity.
This is like saying it's unfair to help someone with a broken leg because it takes time away from people with other injuries. The problem is that someone broke the person's leg, not that their leg needs attention from a doctor.
They're both racist!
What you're doing is breaking the leg of some other guy who looks like the original leg-breaker to "make everything even". There were two problems, originally: someone was going around breaking legs, and someone had a broken leg. Now you're cheering on the next leg-breaker, and there's more broken legs in the world.
Your justification for being racist doesn't prevent your actions from being racist.
They're not both racist, and no; giving a qualified person a spot at a prestigious university is not "breaking the leg" of "some other guy", when that "other guy" has many, many other opportunities to excel in their life, whereas the qualified student being admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.
Going to Yale is not the focus here, it's "being granted chances to excel in life."
You continue to ignore the actual problem here (that minorities are disproportionately failing to excel academically and in society), and I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing...
You can’t say this after claiming someone “admitted to Yale may have no other opportunities at the kind of life a Yale graduate might receive.” What evidence do we have that this is uniquely enabling for a person of one race and not another? Yes, it may be uniquely enabling for the affirmative action candidate. But that doesn’t rule out it being uniquely life changing for someone else.
> I'm beginning to wonder if you even see that as a bad thing
I can absolutely say that Yale being the only opportunity for some folks makes this bigger than “going to Yale”, in fact that’s exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time. For the affirmative action kids, Yale is a big deal, for the kids AA bumps out, Yale is not nearly as big of a deal.
And yes, we’re dealing in aggregate. Trying to cite specific counterexamples to the statistics is a waste of time because the whole point is that it’s, overall, better. Nobody is arguing that it’s strictly better 100% of the time… but you knew that, and made your argument anyway.
Fundamentally, do you care that certain minorities are massively underrepresented in many aspects of prosperity or not? There’s nothing self defeating about wondering if you’re one of the many people on the Internet who don’t care. You’re acting a lot like you don’t care, so the question is valid.
> A person should be advantaged on the basis of their race, if a racist's perception of their race has been the cause of centuries of disadvantage already.
I do not agree, although there is also the consideration if the centuries of disadvantage continues even today, or not. If it does continue today, then it should be worth to mitigate such disadvantages, in order that such a disadvantage should soon be stopped, but that is not necessarily meaning that you should need to gain more advantages too.
Even so there is different way to be grouping, by race, by what language(s) you can speak/write, etc. But, you are individual person too. Don't be forced or group into something if you did not do it just because someone else does (e.g. people who have the same name as you, or with similar skin colours than you, or religions than you, etc).
They should have diversity, but the method for doing so should not be to force it, or to require certain quotas, etc. But, they should let them in. After that is happening, then you can see what is the result, I suppose.
You should not judge something that you do not know, before it is done; otherwise the judgment cannot be possible. This is the case whether it is racist or not. Unfortunately they too often ignore you because it is something that is not as they say is "normal". Sometimes this is legitimate but not always and so you should not make the early judgment, instead the late judgment is going to be better.
They say that "diversity encourages students to question their own assumptions, to test received truths, and to appreciate the complexity of the modern world", and yes this is necessary too; you can question anything. It is true if you have diversity or not, but being diversity can be helpful. However, you will have diversity whether or not they are visibly difference by race, etc, although that is one thing being diversity too it is not the only thing.
But, if Yale wants to accept certain people, they can do so, as long as it is not a monopoly then they can be accepted into other universities hopefully. (Whether or not they should reject certain people is a different question, though, than if they can be allowed to do so.) If nobody will accept them, then it is a real problem. If course materials can be copied, then it is helpful then you should not need to be accepted everywhere if you can read them anyways; but, unfortunately there is too much copyright and other thing, which can also be a problem.
> Beginning to repair that inequity is not racist.
Yes I agree, it is not inherently racist. But, that does not necessarily mean that none of the methods for doing so might be racist.
> What is racist is to think you're inherently better than them, which is what many people who want to end affirmative action believe.
Do you have the citation about it (as someone else asked, too)?
> More people, overall, get elevated to the highest levels of academia as a result of these programs.
OK, then that will be good, but does it result in any excluding people? It should not exclude someone for reasons that are no good, though.
You say "for the kids who get bumped out of Yale, many other doors remain open". If that work, if there are enough other university in that area, which are of a good quality (for the specific kind of courses they wish to take), then it is good, but as I mention above, such things as copyright can still be the problem too.
The statistics also must be considered properly. You must consider the correlations, including the variables you know and those that you do not know. The reason why they result certain things also should be considered, like any good scientific experiment ought to do.
Some people in other comment suggested other policies, e.g. dramatically reduce homework, it can help black people too. Well, if too many homework is not helpful (actually, from my experience in school, I agree that too many homework is not helpful) then I do think that it would be helpful to be reduced, whether it specifically helps black people or not; as long as it is not harming black people (or other people).
> Beginning to repair that inequity is not racist. What is racist is to think you're inherently better than them, which is what many people who want to end affirmative action believe.
Note that in this case they are allegedly "former KKK". But, whether they are KKK or not, it is not the criteria to evaluate how good any of their proposed policies are (or the quality of art, music, mathematics, books, etc); they should be evaluated by themself instead.
They say, "My bill only says that in cases when you hire or promote someone, you have to do so on the basis of their ability." It seems good to me, but there are other considerations that must be made, including all of the extra details that the bill might say. Sometimes they try to hide things, but even non-hidden things must be considered properly. For example, how do they intend to enforce it? Even, should it be enforced, anyways? (Maybe, or maybe not.) Some methods of trying to enforce it are not going to be good, regardless of what your intention is, I think. But, enforcement is not only issue, there are other things, too. The statement seems to be simple, but such things are rarely that simple. Note that they mention promotion as well as hiring. If you promote someone they should be competent for the job they are being promoted to, rather than for their current job.
If we're using association with the KKK, then note that your favored organization the ACLU also has backed the Nazis and KKK on many occasions [0]. It's almost as if association with the KKK is not enough to impugn a policy.
It is 404 error. However, I added a few letters on the end of the URL and then it works.
They defend their right of freedom of speech, and I agree that they should have the right of freedom of speech, regardless of if I or whoever else agrees or disagrees with the some or all of statements that they will say.
Like they say, you must defend free speech of everyone (whether you agree with them or not), instead of risking the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.
(It is like the quotation misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.")
Also, the Civil Rights Act was passed in a time of extreme racism (necessarily, otherwise the laws wouldn't have been needed), society has advanced substantially since then, as has our thinking about what racism is and how it affects society.
I don't have the skills to switch to a different company, tech jobs are limited in my area, I don't perform well remotely, and my wife won't consider relocating. My current shitty job is the best job I can get.
Sure, but learning takes time, which I have little of. It's also much easier for some than others (getting significantly more difficult as I age).
The main remote issue is that my wife interrupts me to do stuff or answer questions throughout the day. I also feel I'm slower to learn remotely. I think that if I'm an expert in the tech already, then remote could work.
I get it, but you already have a job. I assume you are be pretty busy, but at least you already have a secure source of money and you're not against the clock or anything like that.
You don't need to spend all day in a class like a university student. An hour a day dedicated to lectures, practice and taking some notes with pencil and paper* can do wonders on the long term.
As for your wife, maybe you can talk to her and ask her to leave you alone for some specific times, unless it's urgent. Or ask her to send you a message instead of talking so it doesn't interrupt your focus so much.
* Some research on learning has proven that taking notes like that is way more effective than typing on a keyboard.
Thanks. I have tried talking to her, but the results weren't great. I do try to learn things outside of work. The main problem is if you don't use it, you lose it. Without constant practice it's hard to build and retain skills. I don't even have an hour a day free for that due to work and home responsibilities.
You don't lose it completely, though. And it's easier to relearn and get back on track than to learn it the first time.
I learned C like ten years ago and then I moved on to PHP and then to JavaScript. I'm sure I forgot most of it. But thanks to that, I'm now learning Golang and when it came to pointers it clicked almost instantly.
True, the concepts transfer. But for me the concepts are always easy. The implementation/syntax/libraries are harder for me. I know at least I can go back and use prior projects as a guide... if I ever return to that tech. That's probably a big one for me, that I feel like the work ends up being thrown away if i never use it again. Although things like Android development has changed significantly with things like apk to aab, Java in Eclipse to Kotlin in Studio (Jet Brains), etc.
They might not be. I'm hesitant to admit that because 1) They used to be and I was a high performer at a mediocre non-tech company 2) There's nothing else I can do to earn enough to support my family.
>There's nothing else I can do to earn enough to support my family.
Honest question that I know won't be well-received on HN: I don't know your personal details, but do you think there is not anyone else in a lower paid job who has figured out a way to support their family?
Frustration stems from when reality doesn't meet our expectations. You can choose to try and bend reality to your will or change your expectations. One is significantly easier than the other.
Sure, I can take a lower paying job. We would likely have to sell our house and move to an apartment and give up hope of retirement. The thing is, many of these people in lower paying job still make decent money, but those are skilled jobs. I would have to go to a trade school or apprentice for many of those, but likely couldn't due to needing an income. Because I would be unskilled labor, I would probably be looking at jobs around $20/hr with benefits (if I'm lucky). Without benefits, we'll be bankrupt quickly.
Most of my frustration is because my bosses are assholes. I now expect bosses to be assholes, but it's still frustrating.
Based on your comment history, you seem to be very aggressive and derogatory. I would almost say you're trolling. It's quite pedantic to claim you never said someone is wrong even after you've said several things which effectively say that.
I'm not the person who is causing your anger and frustration, but the fact that you choose to berate me instead of do anything about your situation speaks volumes.
I see “network effects” cited so frequently as this impenetrable fortress, but… literally every site that now has “network effects” had to fight them to exist, so it seems kind of odd…
We talk about exponential growth a lot more than exponential collapse. Historically, social networks collapse as quickly as they grow. Even mighty Facebook recently hit the peak, and in their most important markets the network effect is utterly collapsing.
When LI started, it didn't have much competition so it was easier.
Network effects is not an impenetrable fortress. It just means your product has to have a really good reason for people to switch, and I dont see anyone in the work network space doing anything really better than LI. I wish someone was.
> Taking money from corporations and rich people creates a relationship where you have some loyalty to them or they can punish you if you don't act how they want.
This gets thrown around a lot, but how often does this actually happen? I feel like we all assume it's true, but I wouldn't be surprised if this specific form of corruption were a lot less common than we think.
It'd be more like if Lichess were funded by Nazi gold or something, and the person funding it was trying to do so because they want you to forget they stole a ton of Nazi gold.
PGA isn't behaving this way for moral reasons, but it's an extra component to that situation which makes this harder to analogize.