TameAntelope

My point is I am not getting "even more" calls, at all.

LIV has moral opposition.

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.

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.

Cite data that the KKK wants to end affirmative action?

…uh, okay? [0]

[0] https://www.csmonitor.com/1991/0613/13072.html

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.

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...

A surgeon cannot fake his track record and experience after residency and working.

Fake? No. Fudge? Yes, easily. Besides, you can be competent and still substantially worse than a gifted surgeon would have been had they been given an actual "equal" opportunity like the comment I replied to claimed to care about.

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.

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'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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

You are not. You think you are, but you are not.

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.

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.

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.

Did I say you were wrong? No, you did.

No ego, just facts, and your attitude here is crap, your headspace is so negative I’m not at all surprised you’re suffering such as you are.

Get the skills, limited doesn’t mean none, get better at performing remotely, drop the wife…

You are in complete control over your life, but you have to accept that responsibility. Stop blaming externalities and start owning your choices.

Who said anything about your current company?

That’s my point; nobody tries because harpies screech “network effects” every time it’s discussed…

As if the source of the uranium was in any way comparable to gas or coal…

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…

Oh yeah, and Germany is totally not in any kind of energy crisis right now due to lack of domestic energy sources...

There are no downvotes on submissions, FWIW.

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.

What they say and how they behave. I really don't believe there are a relevant number of people who can consistently say one thing and vote a completely different thing for years on end.

Maybe I'm naive, though. I really do think nearly everyone in congress does want to make the world a better place, they're just lost/confused about how to go about that, often getting caught up in the game of staying in congress rather than using their time there for good.

Ahaha I always love the calls for political violence in the US, because we've experienced so little (relative to other parts of the world). Honestly it shows how well off we've been these last decades to have the luxury to call for someone else to kill a politician for us because we're upset. You have no concept of the injustice that would arise if "the people" begin murdering politicians in the street again.

So many books cover the hideous nature of mob justice, so-called "revolutions", and their gruesome knock-on effects, there's really no excuse to be this undereducated about what you're saying.

I would love to have whatever problems Google has, and if FOMO is how Google got to be/remain Google, please yes give me lots and lots of FOMO...

My point is that maybe one of the most successful companies on the planet might not be a good example for illustrating "disastrous company strategies".

I do agree, generally, with the article FWIW.