That is literally where the term comes from. It isn't a quote, it was an executive order. That language is what it legally meant.

> It means denying access to limited places in education based on race.

Every person accepted is a denial to someone else. As you said, there are limited spaces. If you define it as a right to have a space at that school, then by definition you have to deny some people their rights, since you can't accept all of them.

Affirmative action means you are supposed to factor in the existing disadvantages that minorities face when deciding between two candidates. It doesn't mean accepting a less qualified candidate, it means acknowledging that our previous methods for choosing between candidates was inherently discriminatory already, and in order to counteract that, we need to take 'affirmative action' to make things more fair.

You can always argue about what criteria should be used to choose between two comparable candidates, there is no such thing as a perfectly 'objective' evaluation. Even if you chose to base everything on a test score, you still have to decide what goes on the test and how the questions are worded. There is no way to do that that is perfectly fair for everyone, even if we accepted the premise that test scores are an accurate and fair measure for choosing who to accept to a school.

Why shouldn't the pervasive, clear, and systemic racism and discrimination that many minorities face be used as a factor when determining school acceptance? How is ignoring that reality 'more fair', and how is acknowledging and compensating for that reality a 'denial of rights' to anyone? Wouldn't it be a worse denial of rights to ignore the discrimination and racism, and making decisions as if the world wasn't the way it is?

It felt really special to see all my friends and family out there in the audience supporting my wife and I sharing our vows to each other. I was grinning like an idiot the whole ceremony because I was just so happy.

I had always loved going to my cousin's weddings. No one in my family is religious anymore (my uncle was a priest but left the priesthood, I was raised atheist), but we all do take marriage pretty seriously. I have 10 cousins and 4 sets of aunts and uncles, and all of them are still married to their first spouse. It felt very special to join that club. I was the second to last cousin to get married (I am also the second to youngest).

All my cousins had amazing weddings, too. They were all big parties that we had a lot of fun at. I felt like it was my turn to host one, and it felt magical. We got married at the downtown library, which is a special place for us. We love taking our kids there and showing them where we were married.

Having spent that money hasn't really changed my life in any significant way. I don't think anything would be different if I had an extra $60k. For the price of a nice car, we got a magical night that we will never forget, wonderful memories, and a fantastic way to celebrate our commitment to each other. It was a once in a lifetime thing. Way more valuable to me than a nice car.

We had a little over 100 people, our wedding was at the downtown library, and we spent about $60k. It didn't really hurt our ability to buy a house a few years later, an extra $60k would not have changed our budget at all.

As far as your particular question goes, I don't agree that believing that all races should have the same rights is inherently in conflict with the idea of affirmative action. In most implementations, there are no rights that are denied to anyone when affirmative action policies are implemented. The entire point and purpose is to counteract existing norms, institutions, and system structures that are actively denying rights to citizens in particular groups/races.

For example, take the original affirmative action order (from which the phrase was coined) signed by JFK in 1961. The text stated, "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"

What rights are being denied if that is followed? The idea is that it is clear through observation that the criteria that was being used before was preferential to white Christian men, so they were instructed to proactively address that unfairness by changing their hiring process to attempt to eliminate those biases. How is that in any way denying rights to any group?

There are many political opinions that I strongly believe in that I am comfortable disagreeing with people on. I believe everyone has a right to health care, and that society should guarantee basic necessities for everyone. I even feel that belief is a morality based belief. However, I can accept people disagreeing with me, and can accept that there are some strong arguments against my belief, and that good people can disagree with my position.

On the other hand, if someone believes that certain races should not have the same rights, or that women should be given less agency than men, I will not entertain that argument or accept that it is just a political dispute. That is a fundamental moral issue, and is beyond JUST politics.

I am sure we can all argue about where that point is, but I wonder if we agree that there is such a point? Or do we have to keep increasing our wealth forever?

Personally I can’t get past horrible prose.

You can pay for the capacity, using the per token price.

Other times, I have something specific I want to accomplish, but I dread the amount of time it will take to make it happen.

Now, it is never that I don't know HOW to make it happen, it is that I know how, and I know how many steps it is and how many components there are to build to even get the simplest version running and I just dread it. I want the thing, but I don't want to spend the time to make the thing.

I have had so much fun recently making so many things that I have never gotten around to over the years, because I just couldn't justify the time.

I also have the time to tell the AI to add all the nice to haves, and handle all the edge cases that weren't worth the time before, etc.

I am having a blast. I still stop to write the fun bits when I want to, though. It is great because I only have to code the bits I want, that are fun.

At some point, a business should shift from growth state to a steady state. The idea that businesses have to grow forever is a sad consequence to how we fund companies.

The only thing that grows forever unchecked is cancer.

I don't think cheating is the right word here (ironically), which I think you are kind of acknowledging by putting it in quotes.

Based on your footnote, it sounds like you are more concerned that using a thesaurus is more likely to end with a worse result, since you are likely to use the incorrect word, or to use the word incorrectly.

This sounds more like the opposite of cheating; cheating is about unfairly getting a better result, but this concern is more about accidentally getting a worse result.

The types that are banned are ones that set the restriction as a part of a normal employment contract, where there is no specific compensation given for accepting the non-compete and where the employee can't decide to abandon the non-compete in return for not getting the extra money.

I have tried over the years to get into hand writing and note taking. It never works. I am so grateful for typing, it has saved my life for decades. I can type ridiculously fast, and it doesn't wear me out.

I have finally stopped apologizing for this, or thinking something is wrong with me. It just isn't for me