crackercrews

Ad hominem. He's making a simple claim about the world that is easily verifiable. This site has information about the testing requirements and current cutoff. [1]

1: https://www.sbe.wa.gov/our-work/graduation-pathway-options/a...

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they were referring to tech roles. If not, your point is spot on.

> Some of the attendees had lied about their gender identity on their conference registrations, said Cullen White, the chief impact officer with AnitaB.org, the nonprofit that organizes the conference.

How does this individual know whether people lied about their gender identity?

> Videos posted to social media showed scenes of men flocking around recruiters, running into event venues and cutting in front of women to get an interview slot.

The link for "cutting in front of women" doesn't appear to show that. It shows men standing in line, and a couple confusing videos with crowds. What is the part where a man is cutting?

> Women were disproportionately affected by those cuts, making up 69.2% of all tech layoffs, according to The Women Tech Network.

Were women more likely to be junior, and therefore more likely to be cut? It's almost as if NPR just wants to parrot a narrative.

> At the same time, every fact or position put forth is a strategic, margin-positive, and innovative effort from Apple. Super important.

Really? How is planting forests and using green energy margin-positive?

Very loud signaling. That will resonate with some and turn off others. I'm in the second camp. Saying you're planting "forests" not just "trees" is ambiguous hogwash. The faux-impressed response by the Mother Nature actress made it even cringier.

Unfortunately not just some "crazy person". He heads up the College of Global Public Health’s Center for Bioethics at New York University

> I can imagine a future scenario where, in the interests of public health, someone figures out how to transliterate the 'too much salt' genes to 'too much sugar' genes.

This has already been contemplated as a way to reduce consumption of red meat. [1] Just make people allergic to it. All in the name of fighting global warming of course.

1: https://twitter.com/bitcoinorthobro/status/14072586753587159...

Interesting take. I understood conservatives to use it because it is also taking a shot at the so-called MSM, who dubiously created the phrase. I never knew people though conservatives were being muppets by using it.

How is this a self-own?

I'm not sure Allbirds "lost its way". Instead, it seems that their "way" was ESG, and that made their products too expensive and insufficiently durable.

Why stoop to baseless insults? Even if you don't want colleges to be accountable, surely you can't deny that transparency regarding student outcomes would be useful.

Republicans have proposed laws to increase transparency to families regarding outcomes of graduates. They also want to make colleges accountable when graduates cannot pay off their loans. [1]

I don't think there has been any support from Democrats.

1: https://www.nola.com/news/politics/gop-senators-introduce-bi...

> Some sort of randomness would guarantee a diversity of candidates and would even span across dimensions which are not even considered currently.

It wouldn't create as much randomness as you think. For example, nearly 90% of student who score 1500+ on the SATs are Asian or white. [1] It's nearly the same for 1400+. If an Ivy set its lottery cutoff to be at a level that kept its average and interquartile range the same as it currently is, their admitted class would follow this pattern.

1: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sat-math-scores-mirror-an...

You're right, he merely shared his opinion, and look what happened to him! If someone leaked info they would probably face even harsher treatment.

> There is a belief that any group, race, subset of people should have the same outcomes everywhere.

Of course we need to be more specific than just "percent of population". For example, the average age of whites is older than for minorities. So we shouldn't expect the total population percentage for whites college students to line up with their percent enrollment in college, not in the total adult population.

But considering age is just one factor. Of course we need to consider others in order to be equitable. If Harvard admits students with 1500+ SATs, then shouldn't we be looking at that population? It turns out that population is 43% Asian and 45% white. [1]

Interestingly this lines up with Caltech's percentages almost exactly. UC Berkeley, where affirmative action is banned, has roughly the same percentage of Asian students, but many fewer white students.

1: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sat-math-scores-mirror-an...

I definitely did not say that! I was just answering GP's question with a simple fact and link.

Where did you see that in my comment? I don't think that at all.

IIRC some med schools are getting rid of grades in favor of pass/fail. This makes it hard to tell which students are great and which ones barely passed.

UPenn Med School lets in minorities through a side door, no MCAT required. [1]

This will increase discrimination against minority doctors. It most hurts the ones who could have gotten in through the front door but will be assumed not to have.

1: https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/26/some-underrepresented-stu...

Asians spend much more time than others on homework. [1]

1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214221101...

> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Would the goal suddenly not be met if poor smart white kids get into good schools, too? Who loses in this case?

Universities would do this instead of affirmative action if it would lead to the same result. But it wouldn't. It would help poor Asian students. And it would hurt the URMs who are not poor. They currently benefit from strong affirmative action programs but would fare much worse under a program like you describe.

You aren't aware that LGBTQ+ advocacy groups are opposed to some religious groups? And that their their opposition is because of the religious beliefs? This is not a secret.

You missed the point. I was asking if a group that hated orthodox religious groups would be considered a hate group. You are addressing whether religious groups can be hate groups.

What about hating on a orthodox Jews, or Muslims, on account of their beliefs about transgenderism? Aren't they protected classes?

Many groups advance hatred. From the right, there are groups that hate transgender-advocacy groups that do youth outreach. From the left, the feeling is reciprocated.

Depending whom you ask, these groups are either hate groups or "saving our youth".

The SPLC has muddied the waters on this question. Even when hate group numbers decrease, they show the opposite. [1]

1: https://reason.com/2023/06/09/southern-poverty-law-center-mo...

Yeah, the quote is ambiguous. It claims the candidate was out when they found out about the kids. Simultaneously it claims that they planned to hire a man all along. Both can't be true.

As of 2015 it is.

> National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track [1]

1: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112

> Math, when there's no parent at home capable of properly explaining it if the kid gets stuck, doesn't sound like a very productive use of time.

It lets the teacher know how well students understand a concept so they can spend more time teaching it, or get a student extra help at school.

This will increase the difference between the haves and the have-nots. Students with parents who care about education will make sure they do good work. These students will be more likely to develop good study habits that they will need later in life. Students whose parents don't care will make use of the lenient system and will not learn good study habits. When they get to a school or university that doesn't do soft grading, they will be in for a rude awakening.