rosterface

You can probably let them speak for themselves.

I’m Latino and strongly disagree with this. Many I know support Trump and actually are rather conservative.

As a Latino I can say that you should not speak for me or others. I in no way feel “hunted” and neither do any of my friends or relatives. Please do not politicize my race.

For context, this is the report she’s talking about: https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis...

There's no mention of what I think is by far the biggest negative influence on trust: the media. Trust in media is at an all time low:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com
/washington-secrets/trust...

It's a totally self inflicted wound too. Clickbait, outrage bait, blatant political spin, stealthy retractions, journalists on social media starting mobs...

Bots do not even register in most people's minds compared to that.

This would be after I told them I was Mexican. Some people struggle to say it.

I think more specific is always better. I’m of Mexican descent, I prefer to keep that identity. I’ve actually noticed people in the US sometimes struggle to say that as if being “Mexican” is a bad thing; it’s not, don’t be afraid of the term.

Latino and Latina are also fine. Hispanic as well although that has a slightly different meaning.

I think it’s best to call people by the terms that they use themselves. Foisting a new term on someone to describe their ethnicity doesn’t seem like it would ever be a good idea.

I agree. I’m talking about applying the term to people who don’t identify as non-binary. They are the people I know (myself included) who don’t like the term. I could see how it would be much more acceptable to non-binary people if they came up with the term to describe themselves.

Yes, that’s why they consider it racist. For the most part it’s a term from white academia. I don’t think anyone really wants to be told that the words they’ve used to describe themselves for generations must be changed, especially by people from another ethnicity all together.

My Mexican family loves Flamin’ Hot Cheetos (for real) and hates the term “latinx”. Just fyi but it’s considered racist in a lot of Mexican communities.

Ah, the classic “think of the children!” argument. It is no one’s responsibility other than the parent to ensure their child isn’t watching inappropriate content (which will be different for every family and individual).

This article suggests that machine learning and collaborative filtering are incapable of producing healthy recommendations. I beg to differ, the New York Times may not like the result but they work for the vast majority of users on any service with too much content to manually curate.

I think this piece is about making people aware of privacy and pointing out that the platform you’re reading it on is one of the worst offenders is worth doing. As another commenter pointed out that the New York Times policy contains the entire Google privacy policy within it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20166947

The New York Times is as bad at privacy as anyone. Here is their policy:

https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014892108-Priv...

They make extremely illegitimate claims about "needing" to collect your personal information to provide their "services". Which is absolutely untrue since they're a newspaper you could read completely anonymously with zero degradation to experience (except where they've deliberately hobbled that option).

I admit I’m using height as a shorthand here. I’ll put it more simply: Do you think anyone can become a professional athlete with the right training?

I don’t. I think it’s a field where genetics determine who can succeed and who can’t. That isn’t to say that everyone who can become a professional athlete becomes one though.

Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one.

No, I’ve stated a population trait. The population of professional athletes. Not all tall people can be NBA stars but all NBA stars are tall. Being genetically athletic is a prerequisite to professional sports not a guarantee that one can become a professional athlete. Being genetically unathletic does disqualify you from the profession though.

I don't see how this information could be significant enough to have an effect on any decisions I make in life (for example, hiring decisions).

You’ve been advocating strongly for your position so I’m not sure it makes sense to just discount the opposition as useless. At the very least this seems like a great field for further study.

That’s not true. Arguably all professional athletics require a very large genetic component. Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall.

I think the ability to accurately identify tones is also largely genetic, so professional musicians are probably on the list as well.

My guess is that software development also has genetic mental requirements but there’s no definitive answer for that.

Probably a lot of jobs have genetic components whether that’s cognitive speed, athletic ability, ability to focus, fine motor control, a particular enhanced sense...

Latinx, Latin@, Latinex :(

I just posted about this in another thread and don't feel like reliving it (it's seriously depressing):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19464652

Can people please stop using these terms? It's really, really offensive to just rename entire cultures to suit your whims. Really offensive.

Without doxing myself...

It’s not apparently obvious what ethnicity I am based on looks. I had already been told there was a focus on diversity at the company I ended up getting an offer at and they “really want to build a diverse team from the ground up”. The conversation had been dragging for months and I resisted bringing up my background out of principle. I saw the hiring manager tweeting about a Latinx conference (I hate that term) and bit the bullet and told them I’m Latinx. I had an offer by the end of the week. This was after months of similar discussions with other companies where I stuck to my ideal of being hired for what I’ve accomplished and the skills I can prove I have. Ultimately I was running out of money and got desperate. I still feel terrible and angry but I have to put food on the table.

I recently completed a very difficult job search where I unfortunately had to lean on my ethnicity (I’m Mexican) to pass through very overt screening against white men. I was shocked to hear from multiple companies, large and small, that they did not want men and white men in particular.

Now we see a YC co-founder giving 40 women $9000 to learn to program.

Where does it end? I was really sad that while I personally can survive in this environment (if I abandon my ideals of not being judged by my genetics), many good men who are passionate about their work are being pressured from all sides.

I honestly don’t see how any of this is legal but it’s such a taboo to talk about that fixing the problem seems impossible without a major shift back to valuing skills above demographics.

I’m Mexican and can confirm meat isn’t going anywhere. I can’t even imagine Mexico City without it. Not only does everyone eat meat but most people make a living selling it. There are taco carts on every corner.

It’s also a huge part of family life. These dishes have been passed down through the generations and it’s actually moderately offensive to suggest that it’s not socially acceptable to eat what my family has been eating for as far back as anyone can remember. I know my children are growing up learning to love all of the dishes their family cooks and enjoys together.

My issue is with the made up term "Latinx" vs the correct Latino.

I'm Hispanic and have resigned myself to this as well. While I may benefit from getting a job, I'm still subjected to what I would consider racism which I have to publicly turn a blind eye to. I'll give an example:

"Latinx" is not a thing. Yet, I need to listen to a lot of white and other non-hispanic people say it all of the time. It feels like someone just reached into our culture, ripped out its core identity and rebranded it (supposedly in our favor?). I dare not say anything about it though, part of accepting the job with the diversity bonus is that the same people that granted you that power can take it away at the drop of a hat.

"If every investor would make it a non-negotiable term that the companies they invest in must make diversity a priority, the results would be huge. It might not be easy to do, but it can be done."

That's pretty brutal. Don't investors have enough power in the relationship that they need to start dictating stuff like this and further filtering down who they will give money to?

"This is what I tell every woman founder I know who is in a relationship or married and who wants to have children: just do it and do it now."

She is very wealthy and so is her husband (Fred Wilson). I think it's a bit tone deaf for her to just give such stark life advice as if it's that easy for 99% of the population.

Incorrect. It's per capita. From the article:

"Intentional homicide, number and rate per 100,000 population."

India is number 2 on this list, the US is 14:

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violen...

You haven't had issue with clean water? I'd say you're pretty lucky then:

https://water.org/our-impact/india/

I actually agree with you. We need to rethink how education works and is funded. I also think education is valuable and needed in lots of fields.

I just don't think we should excuse people's existing debt. We should look to fix things in the future. Some of that is the realization that there's value to be created outside of credentialed fields. Some of that is also probably the removal of credentials as a requirement for many fields as well.

Actually, I don't have a degree. That's sort of my point. It's very possible to just enter the labor market and make money if you work hard and smart. I'm a developer but I know plenty of people I grew up with who went on to be: military people, plumbers, cops...

there's a good number of folks with student loan debt they can't easily manage who made all the right decisions but got a bad break somewhere.

I don't think it's ever the right decision to take out a massive amount of debt. Even to study something you love. You can't fight against the real world economics of that decision. I saw the option to get what I considered to be a lifetime's worth of debt and looked for alternatives. Lots of people who come from lower class backgrounds do the same.

I think it's going to be very hard to get those people on board with paying off other people's student debt.

As a member of the first group, I agree with you. I really don't like the idea of subsidizing what I consider other people's bad decisions. I was able to make financially reasonable decisions, which often involved sacrifice, and chose to focus on a viable career. I don't want to spend my hard earned money supporting people who didn't do that.

I did not come from money and came from a pretty awful environment so I know this is a possible outcome for most people.

This is off topic so we probably shouldn't talk about it. But I find it humorous that over the past couple of weeks people have been saying Buzzfeed != Buzzfeed News and that Buzzfeed News is actually really high quality journalism. Yet here we have an article from Buzzfeed News and it's total garbage. I see no difference in content quality from the other Buzzfeed.