They don't. You now subscribe to Copilot 365 or whatever the hell Office is called today for the low, low price of $12.99 per month for the rest of your life.
I'm sure that's also an option but I'm looking at their website right now and it says I can own this warmed-over text editor outright for 179$. What a bargain.
You're assuming there is no genetic component whatsoever to human skills and interests, and the only reason women are not studying computer science/car repair/welding is sexism.
I think it may be just a lack of role models. When I went to high school in 2005 (30% black, 30% Latino) all of them basically modeled themselves after who they saw on tv. Blacks gravitated towards sports. Hispanics towards construction and woodworking. The whites in my school mostly came from military, first responders so lot of them went military/firemen. I being one of the few Indians at the school gravitated toward tech because that was what I saw men in my community going to (even before the parental pressure).
I don’t think any of them were dumb, just focused on the things they saw members of their community do.
> You're assuming there is no genetic component whatsoever to human skills and interests
Are you seriously suggesting that black people are genetically less predispositioned to program? Explain the evolutionary advantage to that please because that sounds absolutely absurd.
Here's a strawman: White people are more likely to diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). If people with ASD are more likely to opt for CS degrees, by induction we'll have more white people in CS.
Except for the fact that people with ASD / Neurodiversity are often more likely to be passed over during interview and selection processes as they don't fit the social norms that hiring manager also expect.
So even if they are more likely to be diagnosed - and I presume you mean White 'Men' explicitly, as Women are even less likely to be - they're also more likely to not 'sell' themselves during applications in the expected corporate way, and therefore not get the high-paying jobs.
Diversity is not just Race or skin colour, but that's easier to see (and to consciously bias).
Accommodations for people with autism who might have different needs for things like noise levels or interviewing procedures would be a classic DEI effort.
from my rudimentary understanding of genetics; i don't think that's true or even could be true. These concepts like "white" or "black" are too large and mixed to be meaningful. Remember that the average African American has around 25% euro dna for example.
A lot of conservatives and American libertarians do say that some races are genetically inferior including in terms of intelligence and that they get what they deserve given their subhumanity
That's some real Nazi shit right there and I thought y'all were on the side of the free world or whatever. How does someone exist in 2025 with such ignorant views? I don't get it. MLK was like 60 years ago.
Ultimately the onus is on the people claiming a genetic component to find it and prove it. There are known social issues and have been for quite some time, after all there are people alive today who experienced segregation.
So if there's some genetic bias at play, as long as the social issues are right there staring us in the face, you're going to need to advance the science of genetics to get the answer. Without that it just comes off "race science" and that kind of thing.
I don’t know. When Sweden reached 58% women in university, they stopped the gender equality programs. Why would you help men if everyone knows they are advantaged?
(Oh man, please answer, but we’re overdue for an overcorrection, and it might look as dangerous as 1934).
Flights are operable by 1 person, and this is in fact the normal state of affairs in general aviation. The second person on commercial aircraft is there mostly for redundancy, although obviously having another pair of hands makes things easier.
Redundancy is definitely part of it, but 2 people also make things much much easier and reduce accident likelihood when unexpected things start happening and the workload increases. Lets say there is some severe mechanical issue, you want someone to run through a checklist to address the mechanical issue and fly the plane which is likely now out of autopilot, and another to find alternate places to land, etc.
It's not performative outrage, it's a statement of fact. You didn't merely widen the net, you spearfished candidates of the right race and ignored those of the wrong ones. Regardless of your intentions, how is that not racist?
> Just for clarity, this was for a publicly posted job position, so non-target candidates were able to, and did, put in applications. They were assessed the same way target candidates were.
Before answering your question, I quickly checked your history to confirm my suspicion that you don't give a fuck about racism unless it's against white people and found this gem:
> You're assuming there is no genetic component whatsoever to human skills and interests, and the only reason women are not studying computer science/car repair/welding is sexism.
Your outrage against our hiring practice is 100% performative. So no, I'm not going to engage with you any further.
The one positive "DEI" thing you can do without lowering the bar is to widen the net: look harder for qualified candidates in places where you didn't look before.
This article is not talking about COVID, it's talking about the absurd changes to the hiring process that disadvantaged qualified candidates in favor of people who said science was their worst subject in high school (15 points). How could this not have an impact on hiring?
Because COVID happened much sooner and has likely had a bigger impact than the hiring practices from a decade ago - notice we don't have a concrete number of "disadvantaged qualified candidates" from this article. Whereas, I can point COVID with actual numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42952695
If we're going to say "Did that contribute to a shortage of qualified ATC..?" then you have to considering all inputs into what is a current conversation rather than extrapolate your already asserted points from the article.
> the 1-2 year interruption in hiring pipelines can cause large ripples that take years-to-decades to resolve.
Looking at [1], the difference between planned and actual hires in 2013–2015 was 1362, much higher than during 2020–2022 when it was just 384 (and this is using the pre-COVID target).
I don't know what happened in 2013–2015, but whatever it was, it seems to have had a 3.5 times bigger impact than COVID.
Well, we do know one thing that happened: this scandal.
> The Federal Aviation Administration has imposed a hiring freeze to help blunt the sequester’s impact, but that threatens to disrupt the pipeline of new air traffic controllers needed to replace the thousands of workers eligible for retirement.
They wouldn't mind it, but Chinese EV & solar panel production volumes are already completely mind-boggling, they'll keep doing just fine without the US.
All the numbers look pretty good at first glance (revenues up 15% YoY from $70B to $81B, operating income up from $17B/25% margin to $25/32% margin), EPS up from $1.17 to $1.89), but obviously Wall Street expected even more so now the stock is tanking.
