JCTheDenthog

[flagged]

>Those are certainly shitty ways to ensure equity. Why are they what you jump to?

Because they're effectively what proponents of equity have implemented in practice:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-un...

>What if we did a better job helping parents with childcare and healthcare?

I mean we've already spent trillions on such efforts over the last half century, and the effects have been pretty minimal (and in some cases I'd argue outright counterproductive). See Abbott Districts in New Jersey, the Head Start preschool program, subsidized daycare in every state, etc.

>And that's commendable, but what if your brother would not have had time for doing cross country in high school because he had to care for his siblings as your parents were poor and working double shifts? Or so heavily indebted due to a cancer therapy that he couldn't afford running shoes?

That's awful and unfortunate, but he still shouldn't have an extra hour shaved from his half-marathon times over his competitors, because the half-marathon isn't measuring "How fast could you have run this in an alternate universe where you had no disadvantages". It's measuring "How fast can you run this, full stop."

Poor Black kids who had uninvolved parents that didn't help them to learn math better aren't helped by affirmative action because you're just setting them up for failure in the actual college level math classes they end up in (and are woefully unprepared for). The SAT measures how capable you are at math because that's what matters for college, not how capable you might have been in a different reality.

>Curiously, everyone seems to understand the purpose of handicaps in Golf, but it's an outrageously leftist concept in social contexts.

If I try to join the PGA tour, they aren't going to consider my handicap.

I didn't say it was fair, I was pointing out the NYT being racially biased (as per usual). Imagine at a school that Jenny gets 10 cookies from the teacher, Timmy gets 3, and Johnny gets two. Billy sees all this, but he has a crush on Jenny, so when he tells everyone on the playground about it he doesn't say "Jenny got way more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!" Instead he says "Timmy got more cookies than Johnny, that's so unfair!". That's the ridiculousness that I'm pointing out here.

>What if raw SAT score doesn't perfectly reflect lifelong achievement?

It was never intended to?

>How does one account for that?

It's impossible to account for everything. As much as the thinkers of the Enlightenment and their successors have attempted to quantify and measure everything, it's simply not possible in reality. If someone could devise a better means of measurement than current standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, I would happily welcome them.

But one thing is pretty clear and certain: the SAT is a far better measure of mathematical aptitude that high school grades, and until better measures can be found and implemented I fully support continuing to use it for college admissions and college math placement.

The person I was replying to quoted the article saying "conditions should not interfere", my point was that they do interfere, and will continue to interfere, in spite of all the efforts and hands on the scale and discrimination that equity proponents try to implement. Equity fundamentally arises from a more or less "blank-slatist" view of humans, which is why it leads to such insane outcomes when it comes into contact with reality.

>In your scenarios, equity proponents would tend to advocate for things like extra testing time, access to tutoring, etc.

So you claim, but in reality proponents of equity instituted a system that gave Black students a roughly 450 point advantage over Asian students on the SAT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-un...

Note that the NYT, in their pure, non-partisan spirit of fairness and equity, somehow found a way to describe this as an unfair advantage for White students.

Sure, but if some people are faster than others because they have longer legs or because they've trained more etc. then people without such advantages aren't given special accomodation. It actually runs in my family that we have very short legs in comparison to our torsos. For example I'm 6' tall but look like I'm 6' 4" or thereabouts when sitting down next to someone with more normal proportions. In spite of this disadvantage, one of my brothers did cross country in high school and still runs half-marathons every year or so. He doesn't demand to be given a head start or to have time subtracted to accommodate his inherent disadvantage, because that's the difference between equality and equity.

Sure, but the reality is that such conditions do interfere with the potential of academic success, as much as proponents of equity like to argue otherwise. If I had a severe brain injury as a child, or my mom drank and did a ton of drugs while pregnant with me, or any number of other reasons, I will probably be far less academically successful than in the counterfactual reality where I didn't get a brick dropped on my head as a child.

Equality proponents argue that brick-on-head and no-brick-on-head should be judged by the same standards. Equity proponents argue that brick-on-head should be given advantages over no-brick-on-head to make them obtain substantially similar educational outcomes.

Once again, from your own link:

>Equity recognizes this uneven playing field and aims to take extra measures by giving those in need more than those who are not. Equity aims to achieve equal outcomes for groups, also called substantive equality. Equity aims to ensure that everyone's lifestyle is equal, even if that requires unequal distribution of access and goods.

>This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity.

From the wiki article you linked:

>Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society. Equity proponents believe that some are at a larger disadvantage than others and aims to compensate for this to ensure that everyone can attain the same lifestyle.

>Critics call the SAT inequitable and say high school grades are a good predictor of college success.

I mean, it seems pretty clear from the last 6 years of experience by professors and others that grades (or at least grades in isolation) aren't a good predictor at all for this. The problem is removing the use of standardized tests here was done for ideological reasons. You can already tell by the use of the word "inequitable" here, because a certain insane subset of policymakers and the public believe that we should push for equal outcomes ("equity") over equal opportunity (usually referred to as simply "equality").

I'm not trying to dismiss what you're saying as a possibility (AMD's behavior in many regards over the last 15 years or so is baffling to the point that a family conspiracy feels surprisingly plausible) but Huang isn't Su's uncle.

They are "first cousins once removed" meaning that Su is the child of one of Huang's cousins. Or put another way, one of Huang's grandparents is one of Su's great-grandparents.

You have a problem, so you try to solve it with a regex. You now have two problems.

Pretty obviously the latter.

>There's a problem with tech hiring and nobody wants to talk about it because most people are unaware.

And those who are aware and bring it up often get accused of racism when they do, making it difficult to spread awareness of this awful practice.

In what way? Here in the US it takes too long and costs too much, but there are lots of charities that assist with this. Otherwise it's fairly straightforward. I say this as someone dealing with fertility issues and in the process of pursuing adoption myself.

They can always adopt?

I don't think you'd find anyone arguing that the lottery isn't gambling, so I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here.

Part of it is that it considers downtime in any of the services GitHub provides as GitHub being down. So if GitHub had 100 different services, and only one of them was down at any given time (but at least one was always down), then it would show 0% uptime.

Your comment assumes, a priori, that the stereotypes are in fact "unfair". I don't know enough about cybercrime rates per capita amongst Eastern Europeans vs. other populations to be able to say if it is actually an unfair stereotype, but it is an indisputable fact (supported by virtually every jurisdiction that tracks crime rates by things like national origin, ethnicity, etc.) that there are population level differences in crime rates.

Exceptions are significantly slower than normal control flow in C# (about 10,000 times slower). It's also pretty non-idiomatic in both C# and most other languages I've worked in to use exceptions instead of a switch statement or similar to handle an HTTP error code. Also there can be multiple possible non-error responses from an endpoint you need to differentiate between, and exceptions would make zero sense in that case.

Simple example that I use often when writing API clients:

In current C# I usually do something like

public class ApiResponse<T> { public T? Response { get; set; } public bool IsSuccessful { get; set; } public ErrorResponse Error { get; set; } }

This means I have to check that IsSuccessful is true (and/or that Response is not null). But more importantly, it means my imbecile coworkers who never read my documentation need to do so as well otherwise they're going to have a null reference exception in prod because they never actually test their garbage before pushing it to prod. And I get pulled into a 4 hour meeting to debug and solve the issue as a result.

With union types, I can return a union of the types T and ErrorResponse and save myself massive headaches.

>No, you're wrong. You can lose their Green Card.

Didn't know that.

>If you leave the country for more than 6 months, you need to seek prior approval, and you definitely can lose it.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

>If you get arrested for a major crime, you can lose your GC but you can only lose your citizenship if you lied or committed fraud at the time of your application, or if you committed treason against the government.

That sounds eminently reasonable to me.

I lived in central Europe for two years. Had to wait in line for 20 hours halfway through my time there to renew my visa, otherwise it wasn't much of an issue.

They're permanent residency, so other than voting rights effectively the same thing.

What else have your psychic powers revealed to you about me?

Correct, and congress hasn't been exercising that power for the better part of a century now. The War Powers Resolution was 1973, for example.

I don't know what the exact solution is, but something needs to change in the structure and incentives of congress to incentivize them to exercise power again. Eliminating the filibuster and drastically increasing the total number of representatives seem like the best ways to me, but I'm open yo other possibilities.

>Bureaucrats who must follow the rule of law is what you want.

Under Chevron we had the opposite of that: bureaucrats who had ridiculously wide latitude to make their own rules.

What we actually need is for congress to take back control instead of passing all power and authority to the executive branch.

At least from how it's described in the filing, it sounds like they're committed through 2029 on the deal with SpaceX. So they can't just pull out without a massive lawsuit from SpaceX.

Unfortunately the cloud providers also rarely if ever tell you the reason.

I prefer Forgejo, which is a Gitea fork. Forgejo is what runs Codeberg if I understand correctly.