We had a state owned company, telecom, which was then privatised by a National govt., and then as a response to local loop unbundling regulations from Labour, it split itself into two companies, telecom (now spark) for retail and chorus for infrastructure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_New_Zealand#Industry_reg...

I’m wondering why people dig at this so much, what is the answer you are looking for? To me the reason it’s not “politically correct” is because it comes off like the answer you want is for whatever race you believe yourself to be, to be superior to other races in a fundamental way, which would justify subjugating them.

There’s seems to be quite a bit of research done around genetics and intelligence. But every definition of race I’ve seen is either an ill-defined regional genetic stereotype or a description of physical appearance.

Now if some genes are associated with high intelligence or happiness or conscientiousness or empathy, and you want to engineer your children to have those genes, that’s understandable, if an ethical minefield. It also has nothing to with race.

I don't think anyone with a final say cares what the recruiter says beyond here's a list of CVs, they usually aren't qualified to go much deeper, but if they are, they aren't ranking companies based on what juniors on programming forums think are trendy.

I know people here as a rule aren't very empathetic, but the responses to this person are particularly cold.

Your attitude is extremely concerning, you have a lot to be proud of career wise already, and you seem unable completely unaware of that. You have a solid base to build on and you could end up anywhere in a few years.

Amazon didn't hire you because they have a lower bar than anywhere else, they hired you because someone was impressed by you and wants to give you a shot. Extend them the same courtesy at least.

I think you need to seek psychological counselling ASAP, but until then stay away from Reddit, HN etc, as far as I can see your perspective is completely warped by the dishonest way that people present their own professional image, usually because of their own insecurity. Consider why people come to HN to brag -- it's likely because they aren't getting praise anywhere else.

The risk of a pedestrian fatality posed by a collision with a car travelling 30kmh is closer to the risk from a car going 5kmh than that of a car going 50kmh.

Look at the chart here:

http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/safe_speed/

The risk from speed is non-linear.

Risk the pedestrians in speed zone greater than 30kmh, because risk of fatal injury is far lower.

2) Cars pose a risk to cyclists, even if cars are going the same speed, which is a fictional scenario, as many motorists don't go the same speed as cyclists and instead overtake them dangerously ASAP.

3) The risk posed by cycles to pedestrians is far less than the danger posed by autos to cycles.