Furthermore, disparate impact theory has been largely rolled back in recent years.

> They spend a lot of time and effort actively recruiting and seeking out employees from underrepresented minority groups, meaning that it is effectively easier for minority groups to get interviews at this company for this position, but still tries to hire based on actual ability and talent once they get to the interview stage

Discriminating against candidates on the basis of protected class at the application review stage is no less illegal than discriminating during interviews.

#2 may or many not be illegal, depending what you mean by, "goes out of their way to interview a greater proportion of historically disadvantaged minority groups than necessarily would naturally apply to their positions." If this involves using protected class as a factor, in any way, on which candidates to advance to interviews, then yes it is illegal discrimination.

But plenty of companies very publicly instituted policies to financially penalize their employees if they fail to meet gender quotas. Remember, a policy of giving a bonus when an "inclusion milestone" of X% women in technical roles is reached is fundamentally the same thing as instituting a penalty when that X% quota is missed.

* Creating separate interview pipelines for "diverse" candidates, with multiple chances to re-try failed interviews (Asian and white male applicants get one chance).

* Financial penalties when quotas on the basis of race and gender were not met. Of course, the company portrayed them as bonuses rewarded for reaching inclusion milestones, but ultimately a bonus and a penalty are indistinguishable.

* Designating separate headcount pools for women and URM hires.

What was even more concerning was that the people who were privately the biggest proponents of these practices would, like you, publicly condemn the idea that DEI involves discrimination as racist and misogynist.

I don't see a government losing face, I see a bunch of online commenters demonstrating they don't understand that city council meetings have rules.

> Cambridge Analytica then arranged an informed consent process for research in which several hundred thousand Facebook users would agree to complete a survey for payment that was only for academic use.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

I guess the approach here is to shrink down the VR glasses and make them look more like normal glasses from a distance. But I still don't think I'd wear one of these walking around the mall or airport. Reduction in FOV is also a big negative. I'm not really sure where one would use this device over a Quest or the Ray Ban Display. It occupies this awkward middle point where it's not a transparent glass display, but it's also makes a lot of compromises compared to the rest of the VR line.

But that's an injustice! Hyde should get to flout the rules. Because her position is a "correct" one. Because it's wrong for the government to evenly enforce the rules on public comment periods, and instead they ought to selectively enforce the rules to your liking.

There's nothing more to be said here. You're just repeating the same talking points you've said in this comment chain.

Similarly, there seems to be no scheduled public comments period with abortion as the topic.

Of course, neither of these grants anti-flock or anti-abortion activists the right to make off-topic comments on unrelated meetings. Like I said, apparently it's an injustice when the government evenly applies its rules.