They wanted to have a diverse workforce, and came up with an excuse for it post-hoc. The best defense I've seen of this is that diverse opinions are good for business. Of course, hiring racially diverse people while being antagonistic towards those with different ways of thinking does little to increase diversity of thought.

>But taking those concerns up again, almost no one perceives their own biases as biases.

Says the pot to the kettle. The way to prevent bias is to come up with objective factors to evaluate people based on, not intentionally injecting bias of your own.

>If you are crossing a river and the wind blows you off course, you don't head to your goal but to the side. The net result is that you reach your goal. The diversity targets are just tacking against the wind.

We have a word for this: racism.

> I wonder what the evidence for it is

Maybe "Any posts mentioning DistroWatch and multiple groups associated with Linux and Linux discussions have either been shut down or had many of their posts removed" and "We've been hearing all week from readers who say they can no longer post about Linux on Facebook or share links to DistroWatch. Some people have reported their accounts have been locked or limited for posting about Linux"

What do you think evidence consists of if not that?

often, in the form of the pedestrian signal.

> try to clear it before it turns red?

This is the rule in much of the world, yes.

b. pornhub has no monopoly over the internet porn industry. insofar as those men did get so addicted, that would have happened regardless of pornhub existing.

Whereas a normal extension maintainer would transparently update their extension to a new API, removing any features that could no longer be supported, gorhill elected to let the old extension go out of support, and replace it with a similarly named extension under the same organization. The features in the old extension removed in the new one were minor to non-existent. The main worry was originally that they wouldn't be able to cram all the network filtering rules they needed into the limited number that were permitted. However I believe this issue was mostly worked around.

The rest of the issues raised were a masterstroke of politiking on gorhill's part. Basically, google's justification for this removing of apis business was in part to increase privacy/security. Such improvement of course could only arrive if extensions didn't demand broad permission to see all the data on every page a user visits. So gorhill designed the new "ublock origin lite" around not needing to demand this permission. Of course, such an extension necessarily must have much more limited features than the original "ublock origin". Gorhill then presented this loss in functionality as somehow a necessary casualty of the "Mv3" upgrade.

Of course, the original uB0 extension demanded the same broad permission, so this loss in functionality wasn't really a casualty of the new manifest version. Rather, it was an accusation by gorhill against google that their justification for bumping the version was false. The new uB0l extension incidentally supports a mode that demands this broad permission, so in fact the total amount of lost functionality is practically non-existent. The result is that everyone has the opportunity to flame google for their seeming anti-user behaviour. However, to a google engineer this would presumably come across as unfair, and they would presumably feel as if they were being targeted.

I would say that running this "intellectual sorting" over schools themselves is far more productive then running it over individuals in a school. Suppose you find a really good friend at a school, who happens to not share any of your classes; or a mentor who happens to not teach any of your requirements. Going to a school in which most people have already passed a basic filter for compatibility would leave you far better off than running that filter over every person in a school. Like having a shoe store only for people with large feet.

This is such nonsense. Beyond a certain (very low) number, the number of people at the school doesn't help you with those things, because you can only meet so many people. You have classes with a fixed number of teachers, and a fixed number of students in each class. Furthermore, it's usually roughly the same cohort in each class. So even at a school of 5000 people, you only productively meet a small fraction anyways. Besides that, the premise is seemingly that a good school is one where you can find a maximally good mentor and friend. But schools are for teaching things, so ensuring you can find a slightly better mentor or friend at best marginally improves the school as a school. If the charter school is better than a public school in some other dimension, then that will surely overshadow this miniscule effect.

You've seemingly borrowed an argument for larger cities and applied it to schools without understanding it. If I am lacking something in a small town, I either put up with it, or move to another town where I will surely lack something else. If I lack something at a school, I have the choice to switch schools to one where I am better provided for (assuming I'm given that option) or find something to supplement that lack outside of school (say a club, sports team, etc).