- "you expect"- wrong! - at no point did i express my "expectation". I was voicing my opinion on how I think the UX should work for this use case
- "instead of the way it already worked when you joined." Just because it worked this way does not mean it is right.
- "HN -> HN's rules." Yes, Captain Obvious. this does not mean their rules make sense and certainly does not mean a user voicing an opinion on how the rules should be changed is entitled.
the HN admin changed the link I posted. this is unethical - You are fundamentally changing what I posted. As a product manager here is a better solution - A.) Add a clear indicator that admin changed the link to redirect B.) Delete my link and post yours.
Thank you. it took a couple of hours. I used a nocode tool called kgbase.co. Also I am a cofounder of thinknum.com where we scrape job listings (and other data) for hedge funds, large companies so I set up cron script to pull data from our API into KgBase's API
Very useful feedback - Thank you. We run a startup, Thinknum.com, that scrapes all types of data for Hedge funds or business intelligence folks so we get the data from there.
Will iterate on feedback and figure out why Techstars links are not working.
the US Treasury controls the IRS, funds the US govenrment and is in charge of all money printing in the US. Every man (and woman) is equal before the law/govt. Hence it makes sense to analyze how the activity of the US Treasury benefits one group over another.
- This article describes how the government PPP policy effectively discriminates against Black People - that is a problem in my view - once again there could be other problems.
- The article is not attempting to establish an "intent" to discrminate so it is irrelevant if Black people are underrespresented as owners of eligible companies. The article is only showing the policy does effectively discrminiate (whether as an intended or unintended consequence).
it is a self-selected sample - which is a sample. Ofcourse it introduces seld self-selection bias. However a vast majority of studies on race in the US rely on self reported data (for thical and legal reasons) and include some element of self selection bias. The end.
if the article was claiming to show "intent" to discriminate then it would have been misleading. I wrote the article and I never claimed to show intent. I was just showing what as effectively happening and for that the diffeerences in ownership of eligible companies by race is irrelevant.
I am the author of article. looking at difference in ownership of companies more broadly would be useful to establish intent to discriminate but that is NOT what the article claims to show. I simply show what is effectively happening and for that the stats on ownership of eliegible companies by race are irrelevant.
I, the author, was not seeking to show intent to discrimate. I as only showing the policy effectively did discriminate. In order to show intent I would need the statistics you mentioned but to show the effect the stats you mentioned are entirely irrelvant